The right of user in land having an extent of 35 cents situated in Sy.No.367/1, 367/2, 367/3 of Kavassery 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. 39/2001 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 and Sri. Tom K. Thomas, Advocate, counsel 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 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 revealed that the District of Palakkad is severally affected by mite infection (mandarin) which has resulted in lesser yield and lesser life span.
4. I find that the approach made by the competent authority in restricting the life span of the coconut tree as 20 years after fixing the life span at 60 years 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. For fixing the compensation as regards the value of the yielding rubber trees cut, the competent authority took into account 60% of the income as expenses for maintaining the rubber trees. The court below held that deduction of one third amount of the income as expenses was to be made. This Court in Petronet CCK Ltd. v. Thresiamma [2012(1) KLT 959] while dealing with the income to be taken as expenditure for rubber cultivations has observed that 40% of the income can be taken as the expenditure in the case of rubber trees. Hence I hold that 40% of the income can be taken as the expenditure. For the yielding rubber trees the competent authority fixed the age as 20 years in all cases. From the materials on record, I find that the age of rubber tree should be refixed as 25 years.
6. The competent authority awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.500/- for 6 non-yielding rubber trees treating them as firewood. The District Court held that the said trees have to be compensated by giving ¼ value of the yielding rubber trees. I find that the said approach of the District Judge and the reasons stated for holding so are unacceptable. I therefore refix the lump sum amount awarded by the competent authority as Rs.1,000/-.
7. I am not inclined to interfere with the enhanced compensation granted by the District Judge for the miscellaneous trees even though the counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued for reducing the compensation.
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.1,05,742/-. The compensation payable on account of cutting of rubber trees is refixed as Rs.64,592/-. The compensation payable for the non-yielding rubber trees is refixed as Rs.1,000/-. The second respondent is entitled to the balance amount of Rs.34,289/-. The same shall carry an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of taking possession. 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