Kerala High Court
Petronet Cck Limited vs Ii Additional District Judge on 12 December, 2014
Author: V.Chitambaresh
Bench: V.Chitambaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1936
CRP.No. 100 of 2012
--------------------------------
O.P.(PETRONET) NO. 151/2000 OF IIND ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD
...............................................
REVISION PETITIONER:
---------------------------------------
PETRONET CCK LIMITED
IRIMPANAM INSTALLATION OF BPCL
IRIMPANAM, KOCHI - 682 309
BY ADVS.SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
SRI.RONY J.PALLATH
SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------
1. II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
PALAKKAD
2. FR. SEBASTIAN THENGUPILLIL
S/O. DEVASSIA ALIAS SEBASTIAN
THENGUPILLIL HOUSE
KALLINGALPADAM
PANNIYAMKARA P.O.
ALATHUR TALUK
PALAKKAD DISTRICT
R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.K. SAIDALAVI
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
DCS
V.CHITAMBARESH,J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P. No. 100 of 2012
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of December, 2014
ORDER
The right of user in land having an extent of 11.115 cents situated in Sy.No.36/14 of Kannambra-I Village belonging to the second respondent was acquired under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (Act No.50 of 1962) (`the Act' for short). The second respondent filed claim for compensation before the competent authority under the Act for the damages sustained by him. Dissatisfied with the award of the competent authority claiming enhancement the second respondent filed O.P.151/2000 before the court of the District Judge, Palakkad. The court below enhanced the compensation. The requisitioning authority (Petronet CCK Ltd.) assails the order of the District Judge by filing the revision petition.
2. I heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. There is no appearance for the second respondent.
C.R.P. No. 100 of 2012 2
3. The competent authority for fixing the compensation as regards the value of the coconut trees cut from the land of the second respondent took the life span of the coconut trees as 60 years and thereafter restricting the future age as 20 years multiplier as per Park's table was applied. The District Court relying upon Kumba Amma v KSEB [2000 (1) KLT 542] fixed the total life span of the coconut tree as 70 years and thereafter the compensation was calculated. The counsel for the revision petitioner challenges the same contending that the life span and yield of a coconut tree varies from plant to plant and from place to place and that the competent authority has fixed the yielding life of the coconut tree taking note of the said facts. It was also contended that as per the publications of the Coconut Development Board, it is seen that the coconut trees standing in the District of Palakkad are severally affected by mite infection (mandarin) which has resulted in lesser yield and lesser life span. The counsel further challenges the finding of the District Judge in awarding Rs.15/- per C.R.P. No. 100 of 2012 3 tree for the leaves and other produces and also the anomaly in fixing the compensation for the non-yielding coconut trees.
4. I find that the approach made by the competent authority in fixing the life span of the coconut tree as 60 years and thereafter restricting the life span as 20 years for calculating the compensation and the District Judge in fixing the life span at 70 years without any evidence on record is incomprehensible. A microscopic glance of Kumba Amma's case (supra) does not reveal that this Court has fixed the life span of the coconut tree at 70 years. Going by the publications of the Coconut Development Board it is to be noted that the life span of a coconut tree depends upon the speciality of the area and also upon the species of the tree. Hence I feel that the life span of the coconut tree in the particular area can be fixed as 45 years. Taking the life span of the coconut tree as 45, the rest of compensation has to be calculated as taken by the competent authority.
C.R.P. No. 100 of 2012 4
5. For the non-yielding 5 coconut trees, the competent authority granted Rs.500/- per tree as timber value. The District Judge calculated the compensation for the trees as if they are full grown yielding trees and then 25% was deducted for uncertainties. I find the said approach of the District Court is not based on any evidence on record. The same deserves to be interfered with. I therefore fix the amount to be paid to the 5 non- yielding coconut trees at double the amount fixed by the competent authority.
6. Coconut (Cocos Nucifera) plays a significant role in the agrarian economy of our State. Each part of the coconut tree is a source of income to the cultivator. Hence I feel that the District Judge was right in awarding the said amount for the leaves and other produces from the coconut trees.
7. The revision petitioner challenges the award given by the District Judge for 10 yielding arecanut trees. The District Judge held that with regard to the arecanut trees there is no evidence that it is liable to be valued C.R.P. No. 100 of 2012 5 using a different yield. When there is no such evidence the District Judge ought to have approved the compensation awarded by the competent authority. I therefore approve the compensation awarded by the competent authority.
8. The further contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner is that the District Judge erred in enhancing the compensation awarded to 51 non-yielding arecanut trees. I find no reason to interfere with the compensation awarded by the District Judge.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of modifying the impugned order as follows. The compensation payable on account of cutting of coconut trees is refixed as Rs.5,268/-. The compensation payable on account of cutting of 5 non-yielding coconut tree is refixed as Rs.5,000/-. The second respondent is entitled to the balance amount of Rs.3,843/-. The same shall carry an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition in the court below. The balance amount quantified as above shall be disbursed by C.R.P. No. 100 of 2012 6 the revision petitioner within four months from today. There will be no order as to costs.
V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS