Kerala High Court
Petronet Cck Limited vs Narayanan 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. 392 of 2006
------------------------------
O.P.(PETRONET) 150/2002 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD
.............................................
REVISION PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT IN THE O.P.:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE O.P.:
-------------------------------------------------------------
NARAYANAN, S/O.PAZHANIYANDI,
THEKKUMPADAM, THENNILPURAM, KAVASSERY II VILLAGE
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD.
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. 392 of 2006
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of December, 2014
ORDER
The right of user in land having an extent of 51.8206 cents situated in Sy.Nos. 666/4-5, 672/4-1 and 676/1-1 of Kavassery-II Village belonging to 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 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 respondent filed O.P.No.150/2002 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 respondent. C.R.P. No. 392 of 2006 2
3. The competent authority for fixing the compensation as regards the value of the coconut trees cut from the land of the 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 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. C.R.P. No. 392 of 2006 3
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 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.
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.23,414/-. Respondent is entitled to the balance amount of Rs.5,897/-. The same shall carry an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of C.R.P. No. 392 of 2006 4 filing of the Original Petition in the court below. The balance amount quantified as above shall be disbursed by the revision petitioner within four months from today. There is no order as to costs.
V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS