Kerala High Court
Petronet Cck Limited vs * 1. The Additional District Judge on 31 January, 2005
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. 1241 of 2005 ( )
-------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 171/2000 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD
DATED 31-01-2005
PETITIONER:
--------------
PETRONET CCK LIMITED, IRIMPANAM,
INSTALLATION OF BPCL, IRUMBANAM, KOCHI 682 309.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
SRI.RONY J.PALLATH
SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------
* 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
PALAKKAD. (DELETED)
(THE FIRST RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU DELETED FROM THE PARTY
ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 9.1.2006 IN CRP.NO.1241/2005)
2. K.C.UKKURU, S/O.K.I. CHUMMAR,
KOLADI VEEDU, PANNIYAMKARA POST, KANNAMBRA VILLAGE,
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
---------------------
C.R.P.No.1241 of 2005
---------------------
Dated this the 12th day of December, 2014
O R D E R
The right of user in land having an extent of 21.73 cents situated in Sy. No. 39/2 of Kannambra-I Village belonging to the 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd respondent filed O.P.171/2000 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 and Sri.P.R.Venketesh, Advocate, on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
3. The competent authority for fixing the compensation as regards the value of the coconut trees CRP.No.1241/2005 2 cut from the land of the 2nd 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 Judge 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.
4. The counsel for the revision petitioner challenges the same contendng 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.
5. 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 CRP.No.1241/2005 3 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) do 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.
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 for the coconut trees.
7. I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation granted by the District Judge for the miscellaneous trees even though the counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued for reducing the compensation.
CRP.No.1241/2005 4
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 `.1,34,135/-. The second respondent is entitled to the balance amount of `.37,237/-. 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 the revision petitioner within a period of four months from today. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.
nj.