The right of user in land having an extent of 15.23 cents situated in Sy.No.36/3 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.143/2000 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 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 Judge 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 District Judge also granted an amount of Rs.15/- per tree towards the income from the leaves and other produces of the tree. 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 the coconut sapling at the same value as those of a yielding tree and also granting Rs.15/- for the produces from the coconut 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. Similarly the finding of the District Judge in determining the compensation for coconut sapling at par with yielding coconut trees is also liable to be interfered with. I therefore fix the amount to be paid to the coconut sapling at double the amount fixed by the competent authority.
5. 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 the said amount for the leaves and other produces.
6. The further contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner is that the District Judge erred in enhancing the compensation awarded to 3 non-yielding arecanut trees at par with yielding arecanut trees and also the award granted to 1 yielding arecanut tree. Regarding the yielding arecanut tree I find that the approach made by the competent authority in restricting the life span as 20 years for calculating the compensation is not correct. Based on the materials on record I fix the age of the yielding arecanut tree as 25 years. But on calculation I find there is no increase in the compensation payable for the arecanut tree.
7. 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 non yielding arecanut trees is justifiable.
8. 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.19,372/-. The compensation payable on account of cutting of coconut saplings is refixed as Rs. 2,800/-. The compensation payable on account of cutting of non-yielding arecanut tree is refixed as Rs.3,000/-. The second respondent is entitled to the balance amount of Rs.7,606/-. 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