The right of user in land having an extent of 25.16 Ares situated in Sy.No.12/1, 13/1 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 2nd 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 2nd respondent filed O.P.145/2000 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 2nd respondent.
3. The competent authority for fixing the compensation as regards the value of the coconut trees cut from the land of the 2nd 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 based on the contention of the 2nd respondent refixed the life span of the coconut tree as 60 years and also granted an amount of `.15/- per tree towards the income from the leaves and other produces of the tree.
4. The counsel for the revision petitioner challenges the same contenting that the 2nd respondent has not claimed any compensation for the income from the leaf and other produces and that the 2nd respondent has claimed that the future age of the tree is only 40 years. The counsel also contends that the life span and yield of a coconut tree varies from plant to plant and from place to place and that are matters to be taken note of 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 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.
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 approach made by the competent authority in fixing the life span of the coconut tree as 60 years and thereafter restricting the life span at 20 years and the District Judge in fixing the life span at 60 years without any evidence on record is incomprehensible. 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.
7. For fixing the compensation as regards the value of the 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 has to be made. The decision of 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.
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 `.1,93,182/-. The compensation payable on account of cutting of rubber trees is refixed as `.48,444/-. The 2nd respondent is entitled to the balance amount of `.39009/-. 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.