Court must ensure compensation determinations consider expert evidence and adhere to prior judicial standards in property damage cases.

ORDER Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2026 This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Kollam in O.P. (Electricity) No.255 of 2006. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioners being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded towards the damage and loss sustained due to the drawing of 400 KV High Tension Transmission Lines across their property by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (hereinafter called 'the Corporation'). The essential facts are as under;

The petitioners are in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 86 cents comprising in Sy No. 410/1 in Aryankavu Village of Pathanapuram Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the petitioners, for facilitating the drawing of lines, large number of trees were cut from their 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 petitioners, only a meagre amount 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 Apex Court in KSEB v. Livisha [(2007) 6 SCC 792] and 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.9,90,824/- awarded towards value of the trees cut. The diminution in land value was ascertained with reference to Exts. C1 to C3 Commissioner's report, mahazar and plan, and Rs.3,27,127/- granted as compensation. Thus, the enhanced compensation came to Rs.10,42,313/- by deducting the amount already paid to the petitioners.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners 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.A16 and A19 depositions of the Agricultural Officer and Forest Range Officer respectively in evidence, the court below failed to consider the same. Exts. A17 and A18, copies of correspondence between the Forest Department and the respondent Corporation, regarding the compensation paid towards timber value, was also neglected while fixing the value for trees cut. Learned counsel also contended that the court below failed by adopting

8 as the multiplier as against 10.

4. On the question of diminution in land value, it is contended that the court below grossly erred in fixing the land value at Rs.7,000/- per cent as well as in granting 50% of the value fixed towards diminution, even after finding that the electric lines were drawn through the middle of the petition schedule property.

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

6. Having carefully considered the contentions, I find substantial merit in the argument put forth by the Counsel for the petitioners. As rightly contended, after accepting the depositions of the 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. The court below also failed to follow the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Shaik Imambi v. Special Deputy Collector [(2011) 11 SCC

639] while adopting the multiplier.

7. With regard to the fixation of land value and the compensation granted towards diminution in land value also, I find the court below to have erred in appreciating the available evidence properly. Hence, the fixation of land value and compensation towards diminution of land value has to be reconsidered in lines of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Livi