Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3A. In order to substantiate his contention, learned counsel made available a statement working out the amount of compensation payable by applying interest at the rate of 10% and 5%, The gross and net yield of coconuts and its price adopted in the statement are not in dispute.

Gross Yield = 100 Coconuts. Net yield 9/16 X 100 = 56 coconuts.

Prices of Coconuts as on date of cutting (1981-82) Rs. 120 for 100 coconuts.

Value of Net Yield of Coconuts (56 x 120/100) = 67.2.

20 years purchase price at 5% return per annum as per Parks table.

- 64.48 1984-85 477.88 172.48 47.79

- 124.69 1985-86 353.19 91.84 35.32

- 56.52 1986-87 296.67 133.28 29.67

- 103.61 1987-88 193.06 145.60 19.30

- 126.30 1988-89 66.76 159.60 6.67     Amount in-    sufficient     Capital     Exhausted Coconut prices as given in pages 266 and 267 in the "Coconut Statistics" published by the Coconut Development Board (Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India, "Kerala Bhavan", Cochin-11.

36. In T. Giri Thimmaiah v. Karnataka Electricity Board, AIR 1999 Kant 32 a learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court had occasion to consider the very same question, namely, assessment of compensation on cutting trees. The learned Judge took the view that compensation has to be determined in accordance with judicial principles by employment of appropriate methods of valuation, so that person who is deprived of property is fully indemnified against the loss. AIR 1961 Kerala 236 (1961 Ker LT 238) was quoted with approval. It was then observed that 'so far as coconut trees or arecanut trees are concerned, they have to be valued at 20 times or, at least 15 times of the annual yield.' The Court had referred to the evidence adduced in the case relating to the life span of the coconut trees which is between 85 years to 100 years. Since the evidence on the income from the trees was not sufficient, the matter was remanded to the District Judge for fresh consideration, but with a direction that in case of coconut and tamarind trees, multiplier of something in between 15 to 20 may be applied.

45. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there was a dispute between the parties as to the estimated yielding age of coconut trees. Learned District Judge, after referring to the evidence In the case and also earlier decisions of this Court, came to the conclusion that the reasonable yielding age of coconut trees which were cut down from the property belonging to the petitioners should be 70 years. Regarding the rate of return eventhough the learned District Judge was impressed by the arguments put forward by counsel for the petitioners, he could not accept the same in view of the decision of this Court in, 1981 Ker LT 646 : (AIR 1981 Kerala 223). Therefore, learned Judge found that compensation awarded by the respondent was not proper and valid only for the reason that it was not assessed taking into account the yielding age of the coconut trees as 70 years. Parties were therefore directed to file fresh valuation statements on 10-8-1984. Pursuant thereto, a valuation statement has been filed only by the petitioners. On the basis of the fresh valuation statement, learned Judge found that petitioners were entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs. 338.35 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of cutting of the trees.