The right of user in land having an extent of 11.6 cents situated in Sy.No.36/14 of Kannambra-I Village belonging to the second 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 second 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 second respondent filed O.P.No. 149/2000 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. There is no appearance for the second respondent.
3. The competent authority for fixing the compensation as regards the value of the coconut tree 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 also challenges the finding of the District Judge in fixing the compensation for two coconut saplings at the same value as those of a yielding tree.
4. 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.
5. I find that the finding of the District Judge in determining the compensation for 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 coconut saplings at double the amount fixed by the competent authority.
6. The further contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner is that the District Judge erred in enhancing the compensation awarded to non-yielding arecanut trees at par with yielding arecanut trees. In compensation matters, the court is bound to make an independent assessment on the basis of the evidence adduced. I am also conscious of the fact that in compensation matters an element of guess work is good. But the same should have some nexus to the evidence available on record. I find that the approach made by the District Court is liable to be interfered with. Considering the facts of the case I find that an increase of double the amount granted by the Competent Authority for 10 arecanut saplings is justifiable.
7. 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 Rs.15/- for the leaves and other produces.
Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of modifying the impugned order as follows. The compensation payable for cutting of coconut trees is refixed as Rs.57,966/-. The compensation payable for coconut saplings is refixed as Rs.5,600/-. The compensation payable for cutting of non-yielding arecanut trees is refixed as Rs.10,950/-. The second respondent is entitled to the balance amount of Rs.21,057/-. 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 four months from today. There is no order as to costs.
V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS