1. The revision petitioner, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd ('the Corporation' for short), is aggrieved by the order of the Additional District Judge-I, Kozhikode in O.P.(Electricity) No.297 of 2009 directing payment of enhanced compensation to the respondent towards diminution in land value, consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across his property. The essential facts are as under;

                  The respondent was in ownership and possession of landed property situated in Puthuppadi village in Kozhikode Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non- yielding trees. According to the respondent, for facilitating drawing of the lines to ensure smooth transmission of power, large number of trees were cut from the property. The drawing of high-tension lines rendered the land underneath and adjacent to the lines useless, resulting in diminution in the value of the property. In spite of the huge loss suffered by the respondent, only Rs. 3,11,110/- was paid as compensation towards the value of yielding and non-yielding trees cut and no 1.compensation was granted for diminution in land value. Hence, the original petition was filed before the District Court, seeking enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution in land value.

2. After trial, the court below found the respondent entitled to compensation for diminution in land value and enhanced the compensation for yielding and non-yielding trees cut. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation ordered, the respondent filed Civil Revision Petition before this Court and the matter was remanded back to consider afresh with a specific direction to take into account the yield from each tree cut and to consider all components of diminution in land value. The respondent was also granted the liberty to adduce further evidence in support of his claims.

3. Accordingly, the original petition was considered again. In view of the statement filed by the respondent clarifying that he is not claiming further enhanced compensation for yielding and non-yielding trees cut, other than what was ordered by the court below earlier, the claim under that head was not considered.

4. For re-evaluating the claim for compensation towards diminution in land value, the court below relied on Exts. C2, C3 and C12 commission reports and plan. The court found that a total extent of 36.9 cents is affected due to the drawing of 400KV Mysore – Kozhikode transmission lines, out of which 5.43 cents is covered by a tower erected in the subject property. The court has taken the potentiality of the property into account including its proximity to NH 212. It is noticed that the Manalvayal Panchayath road abuts the eastern boundary of the petition schedule property and is situated within a radius of 2 kms from important Government institutions, schools, colleges, churches and commercial establishments of civic importance. Considering the aforesaid locational features and relying on the land value fixed by the court below in OP No. 136 of 2010 and connected cases, the land value of the subject property was fixed at Rs. 35,000/- per cent. Taking into account the fact that the transmission lines pass over the side of the property, the percentage of diminution was fixed at 25% for the affected area and 100% of the centage value is granted for land covered by the tower. Accordingly, after deducting the amount already received, the respondent was found entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,03,429.5/- towards diminution in land value. Contending that the compensation granted towards diminution in land value is far in excess of the actual damage sustained, the Corporation has filed this revision petition.

5. Heard Adv. E.M. Murugan for the Corporation and Adv. C.P. Peethambaran for the respondent.

6. Learned Counsel for the Corporation contended that the land value fixed as well as the compensation granted towards diminution in land value are exorbitant and there is no rationale in granting 12% interest on that amount. It is further submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting interest from the date of cutting of trees instead of the date of filing of the original petition.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent argued that enhancement was granted after considering all relevant factors.

8. As far as the diminution in land value is concerned, the factors to be taken into consideration, as laid down in KSEB v. Livisha [(2007) 6 SCC 792] are as under;

                  “10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small tract of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used.”

                  On careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the compensation was awarded after taking all the above factors into consideration. The nature of the land and the manner in which the land was affected by drawing of the lines are all seen considered for fixing the land value as well as the percentage of diminution. The discretion was properly exercised in granting 30% of the land value as compensation for the area fell under corridor.

9. The contention that the court below has transgressed its jurisdiction by granting interest on the compensation amount from the date of cutting of trees requires to be discussed at this juncture. It is to be understood from the specific facts of the case at hand that, value of the subject property, which is a residential plot, is adversely affected by the cutting of trees. Although the compensation towards trees cut is fixed separately, the effect of the drawing of lines on the land value ought to be considered in a holistic manner, particularly in cases where the subject property is agricultural land or residential plot. In KSEB v. Maranchi Matha and Others [2008 (1) KLT 1038], a Division Bench of this Court has held that the interest is payable from the date of cutting of trees as it is the most definite date which can be ascertained. Therefore, the court below committed no mistake in granting interest on the compensation amount for diminution in land value from the date of cutting of trees.

10. In view of the decision of this Court in Power Grid Corporation Ltd. V. Devaki Amma & Another [2024 SCC Online Ker 2415], wherein it was held that the court is not bound by the guidelines/orders issued by the Government while fixing the compensation, the contention of the Corporation that the court below went wrong in granting compensation towards diminution fixed in excess of the guidelines issued by the Government is liable to be rejected. In view of the decision of this Court in P.Raghavan v. KSEB [CRP No.3256 of 2001], the contention that the court below committed an illegality in awarding 12% interest cannot also be sustained.

11. As such, there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, warranting intervention by this Court in exercise of the revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

                  For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petition filed by the Corporation is dismissed. The Corporation shall pay the enhanced compensation fixed by the court below within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. If any portion of the enhanced compensation is deposited by the Corporation, that shall forthwith be disbursed to the respondent, on an appropriate application being filed.