Court affirmed the discretion of the lower court in compensating for land value diminution due to infrastructure development.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 30TH POUSHA, 1947 CRP NO. 195 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2017 IN OP(ELE) NO.182 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

S.VISWANATHAN AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. SIVASANKARAN PILLAI, PERUMBILLIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK BY ADVS.

SRI.S.RENJITH SHRI.K.R.PRATHISH RESP O NDENTS / RESPONDENT S :

1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-17 BY ADVS SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI. V.TEKCHAND, SR.GP THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

27.08.2025, THE COURT ON 20.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2026 This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge, North Paravur in O.P.(Electricity) No.182 of 2011. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded towards the damage and loss sustained due to the drawing of 400 KV 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 situated in Rayamangalam Village. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. In order to facilitate drawing of 400 KV electric lines for the smooth transmission of power in the Thrissur - Kochi sector, large number of trees were cut from the property. According to the petitioner, the drawing of high-tension lines had rendered the land underneath and adjacent useless, resulting in diminution of the land value. In spite of the huge loss suffered by the petitioner, only a meagre amount was granted as compensation.

2. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended before the court below that the he was the beneficiary of the yield from the trees cut and the assessment made in the valuation statement is inconsistent with the actual loss suffered. It was also contended that the petitioner is not fully compensated for the diminution in land value due to the drawing of electric lines through the subject property.

3. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation argued that the compensation for trees cut was fixed on the basis of assessment made by the authorities based on factors like the age, yield, market value of the commodity etc.

4. For deciding the claim for enhanced compensation towards the trees cut, the court below relied on Ext. B1 valuation statement and Ext. C1 commission report and reckoned the net yield and value. Based on the findings in Ext. C1(a) Commissioner’s plan, the court below found that an extent of 20.70 ares is adversely affected on account of the drawing of electric lines and hence, the percentage of diminution in land value was fixed at 50%. Thus, after deducting the amount already received, the petitioner was found entitled to Rs.29,65,700/- as enhanced compensation.

5. Heard Adv. S. Renjith for the petitioner, Adv.

Millu Dandapani for the first respondent Corporation and Adv. V. Tekchand, Senior Government Pleader for the second respondent.

6. On careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the compensation towards the value of yielding and non-yielding trees cut were rightly decided based on the evidence available. The diminution in land value was fixed based on factors like situs of the land and the extent to which the land is adversely affected, as laid down by the Apex Court in KSEB v. Livisha [ (2007) 6 SCC 792 ]. Thus, the discretion vested with the court was properly exercised in