The right of user in land having an extent of 10.15 cents situated in Sy.Nos.39/1 of Kannambra-I Village belonging to the 2nd 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 respondent filed O.P.138/2000 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 and Sri.P.R.Venketesh, Advocate, counsel for the 2nd respondent.
3. The competent authority for fixing the compensation as regards the value of the coconut trees cut from the land of the 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 6 coconut saplings.
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 specialty 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. On revaluation I find the 2nd respondent is entitled to the same compensation as awarded by the competent authority.
5. For the 6 coconut saplings, the District Judge treated them at par with yielding coconut trees and compensation was calculated. I find the said approach of the District Judge is not in tune with the practice of awarding compensation to trees. The same deserves to be interfered with. I therefore fix the amount to be paid to the 6 coconut saplings at double the amount fixed by the competent authority.
6. 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 learned Judge was right in awarding `.15/- for the leaves and other produces of the coconut trees.
Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of modifying the impugned order as follows. The compensation payable on account of cutting of non yielding coconut tree is refixed as `.3600/-. The 2nd respondent is entitled to the balance amount of `. 1845/-. 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 four months from today. There is no order as to costs.
nj.
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.