Compensation assessment for property damage due to utility infrastructure must reflect actual loss and adhere to established precedents.

ORDER Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2026 This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Kollam in O.P. (Electricity) No.312 of 2012. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded towards the damage and loss sustained due to the drawing of 400 KV High Tension Transmission Lines across his property by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (hereinafter called 'the Corporation'). The essential facts are as under;

The petitioner is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 1.42 acre comprising in Sy No. 872/1/6/1 in Thenmala Village of Pathanapuram Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the petitioner, to facilitate drawing of lines, large number of trees were cut from his property. The drawing of high-tension lines rendered the land underneath and adjacent to the lines useless, resulting in the diminution of value of the property. In spite of the huge loss suffered by the petitioner, only an amount of Rs.1,16,000/- was paid as compensation. Hence, the original petition was filed, seeking enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution in land value.

2. The court below found that the compensation paid by the Corporation is not in consonance with the findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in KSEB v. Livisha [ (2007) 6 SCC 792 ] and Shaik Imambi v. Special Deputy Collector [ (2011) 11 SCC 639 ] and is therefore not just and proper. Hence, the yield of the trees and its value were assessed and fixed based on the available materials and Rs.8,89,081/- awarded towards value of the trees cut. The diminution in land value, was ascertained with reference to Ext. A13 title deed as well as Exts. C1 and C3 Commissioner's report and plan and Rs.5,50,750/- granted as compensation. Thus, the enhanced compensation came to Rs.14,39,831/- by deducting the amount already paid to the petitioner.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below had grossly erred in assessing the value of trees cut and in fixing the diminution in land value. It is submitted that, in spite of accepting Exts. A9, A10 and A18 depositions of the Agricultural Officer, Chithara, Deputy Rubber Production Commissioner and Forest Range Officer, Aryankavu, respectively in evidence, the court below failed to consider the same. Likewise, in spite of finding that the petitioner's property would fetch a fair value in the range between Rs.22,500/- to Rs.37,500/- per are, the land value was fixed at Rs.20,000/- per cent only as against Rs.40,000/-

per cent in Ext. A14 sale deed.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that the well-considered order of the court below warrants no interference.

5. Having carefully considered the contentions, I find substantial merit in the argument put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner. As rightly contended, after accepting the depositions of the Deputy Rubber Production Commissioner, Agricultural Officer and Forest Range Officer in evidence, the court below unilaterally fixed the annual yield and the price of various agricultural products, without reference to the evidence of the experts.

6. With regard to the fixation of land value as well as the compensation towards diminution in land value, I find the court below is right in holding that the value of the property involved in Ext. A14, which is comprised in another survey number along with a residential house therein cannot be considered similar or similarly situated land to that of the petition schedule property. Hence, that part need not be reconsidered.

7. For the aforementioned reasons, I find the court below to have erred in fixing the compensation towards the value of trees cut. Being so, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with to that extent.

In the result, the civil revision petition is partly allowed.

The impugned order is set aside