Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. I heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. There is no appearance for the second respondent.

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  tree for the leaves and other produces and also the anomaly in fixing the compensation for the non-yielding coconut trees.