Kerala High Court
Petronet Cck Limited vs * 1. 2Nd Additional District Judge on 21 October, 2004
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. 39 of 2006 ( )
-----------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 18/2001 of II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, PALAKKAD
DATED 21-10-2004
PETITIONER :
-------------
PETRONET CCK LIMITED,
IRIMPANAM INSTALLATION OF BPCL, IRIMPANAM,
KOCHI - 682 309, REP. BY S.RAMESH,
COMPANY SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
SRI.RONY J.PALLATH
SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------
* 1. 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
PALAKKAD. (Deleted)
(R1 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED
3.2.2006)
2. P.C. MARY,
W/O.KUTTYKRISHNAN,
UNITY HOUSE, NADATHIPARA,
PANNIYANKARA P.O., ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
R BY 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:
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
---------------------
C.R.P.No.39 of 2006
---------------------
Dated this the 12th day of December, 2014
O R D E R
The right of user in land having an extent of 29.29 cents situated in Sy.No.318/1 of Kannambara-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 her. Dissatisfied with the award of the competent authority claiming enhancement the 2nd respondent filed O.P.18/2001 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 2nd respondent.
3. The competent authority for fixing the compensation as regards the value of the coconut trees CRP.No.39/2006 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 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 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 revealed that the District of Palakkad is severally affected by mite infection (mandarin) which has resulted in lesser yield and lesser life span.
4. I find that the approach made by the competent authority in restricting the life span of the coconut tree as 20 years after fixing the life span at 60 years and the District Judge in fixing the life span at 70 years without any evidence on record are CRP.No.39/2006 3 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 specialty 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.
5. Similarly the finding of the District Judge in determining the compensation for two non yielding coconut trees at par with yielding coconut trees is also liable to be interfered with. I therefore fix the amount to be paid to the two non yielding coconut trees at double the amount fixed by the competent authority. The award by the court granting `.150/- per coconut tree towards timber value is also set aside because as seen from the notes of order of the competent authority, the timber is handed over to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent also does not have a case that he has not received the timber.
6. Coconut (Cocos Nucifera) plays a CRP.No.39/2006 4 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 an amount of ` 15/- for the leaves.
7. For fixing the compensation as regards the value of the yielding rubber tree cut, the competent authority took into account 60% of the income as expenses for maintaining the rubber tree. The court below held that deduction of one-third amount of the income as expenses has to be made. The decision of this Court in Petronet CCK Ltd. v Thresiamma [2012(1) KLT 959] while dealing with the income to be taken as expenditure for rubber cultivations has observed that 40% of the income can be taken as the expenditure in the case of rubber tree. Hence I hold that 40% of the income can be taken as the expenditure.
8. The District Judge has fixed the age of the rubber trees as 35 years and compensation was granted accordingly applying the Park's table. The competent Authority has fixed the yielding age as 20 years. I find that there is no material on record for the CRP.No.39/2006 5 District Judge to come to such a conclusion. Material published by the Rubber Board which was provided to me by the counsel for the petitioner would show that the productive phase of a rubber tree is 25 years. The growth of a rubber tree also depends upon the area and the species of the plant. Hence I fix the age of a yielding rubber tree at 25 years.
9. The competent authority awarded a lump sum amount of `.19370/- for 56 rubber trees which were classified as non yielding. The District Court held that the said trees have to be reckoned as a yielding rubber tree. I find that the said approach of the District Judge and the reasons stated for holding so is unacceptable. I therefore refix the lump sum amount for the said trees at `.38740/-. The counsel for the petitioner further attacks the judgment of the lower court whereby `.150/- was granted as value of timber for rubber trees. Counsel pointed out to me from the notes of order of the competent authority which would reveal that the petitioner had decided to give the timber of the trees cut to the claimant without any CRP.No.39/2006 6 deduction from the amount of compensation. The 2nd respondent does not have a case that the timber was not received by her. Hence I set aside the award of the District Court granting `.150/- as the value of timber.
10. I am not inclined to interfere with the enhanced compensation granted by the District Judge for the miscellaneous trees even though the counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued for reducing the compensation.
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 `.6925/-. The compensation payable on account of cutting of two non yielding coconut trees is refixed as `.5600/-. The compensation payable on account of cutting of rubber trees is refixed as `.1246/-. The compensation payable for the non yielding rubber trees is refixed as `.38740/-. The 2nd respondent is entitled to the balance amount of `.24133/-. The same shall carry an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the original CRP.No.39/2006 7 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.