The right of user in land having an extent of 9.14 Ares situated in Sy.No.36/3 of Kannambra-I Village belonging to the respondents 2 and 3 were 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 respondents 2 and 3 filed claim for compensation before the competent authority under the Act for the damages sustained by them. Dissatisfied with the award of the competent authority claiming enhancement the respondents 2 and 3 filed O.P.144/2000 before the court of the District Judge, Palakkad. The court below enhanced the compensation. The requisitioning authority (Petronet CCK Ltd.) by filing the revision petition, assails the order of the District Judge in enhancing the value of coconut saplings. 2. I heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri. P.R.Venketesh, Advocate on behalf of respondents 2 and 3.
3. The competent authority fixed a lump sum of `.400/- each for the coconut saplings aged 4 years. There were 20 coconut saplings and an total amount of `.8,000/- was awarded. The District Court enhanced the amount to `.1250/- per sapling and an total amount of `.25,000/- was awarded. This is assailed by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.
4. A perlustration of the impugned order would reveal that the District Judge has enhanced the compensation to `.1250/- per saplings based on mere guess work. The District Judge has also stated that the claimants did not furnish any stereo base for fixing the compensation. 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 Judge 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 coconut saplings is justifiable.
Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of modifying the impugned order as follows. The compensation payable on account of cutting of coconut sapling is refixed as `. 800/- each and the total compensation payable would be `.18,000/-. The respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to the balance compensation of `.8000/-. 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 a period of 4 months from today. There is no order as to costs.
nj.
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.