In a civil revision, the High Court of Kerala enhanced compensation for a petitioner whose coconut trees were cut for a 220 KV line. The Court held the land is agricultural, mandated a 12-year multiplier, and ordered an extra payment of 3,26,400 rupees.
Awarded additional compensation of ₹3,26,400/- plus interest at 6% per annum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/25TH BHADRA, 1936
CRP.No. 113 of 2010 (C)
O.P.((ELE.) 222/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
S.SUBRAMANYA IYER,
AMPANATTU MADOM, MAHADEVIKADU P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY.
BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
R3 BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI.JIBU P THOMAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI R3 BY ADV. SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
C.R.P. No.113 of 2010 C
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2014
O R D E R
The petitioner has approached the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara, seeking enhanced compensation under Section 16 of
the Indian Telegraphs Act read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, in respect of the valuable trees cut and removed
from his property and also for diminution of land value.
line, the first respondent had cut and removed 61 yielding coconut trees and 31 coconut saplings (aged 5 years), from the property of the petitioner. Being a 220 KV line, a strip of land having a width of 35 metres on either sides, a total of 70 metres, has to be kept without any use. According to the petitioner, around one acre of
C.R.P. No.113/10
2
property has become useless on account of the drawal of the electric line. It seems that for awarding compensation for the coconut trees, the second respondent has taken note of the fruits that were there on the trees at the time of his inspection. On the basis of a mahazar prepared by him, he considered the actual number of fruits that were found by him at the time of his inspection. It is on that basis, the compensation was arrived at. Dissatisfied with the compensation fixed by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred O.P.(Ele.) No.222 of 2002 before the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara.
C.R.P. No.113/10
3
compensation on the basis of capitalisation method, as mentioned
in State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and another [1995 Supp.(2) S.C.C. 637]. Challenging the inadequacy of compensation, the petitioner has again come up in revision.
that the second respondent ought to have considered the actual number of fruits per year by multiplying the numbers of fruits found by him at the time of inspection, with a multiplier of at least four. That is because of the fact that within every two months yield
can be taken from a coconut tree. It is true that the fruits of a coconut tree will never take 12 months to become ripen. The second respondent had calculated the gross yield as 4705 coconuts per year. The court below has added 95 numbers of coconuts more
C.R.P. No.113/10
4
than what was calculated by second respondent. It seems that the court below has considered 4800 as the gross yield from all the 61 coconut trees cut and removed from the property of the petitioner. Going by that calculation, it seems that the second respondent had taken an average of 77 coconuts per year from a coconut tree. The same can never be correct. It was by considering the heart burn on the part of the petitioner, the court below was constrained to add 95 numbers of coconuts more to the figure, thereby taking the gross yield as 4800 per year. Even in that case, it seems that the average gross yield from a single coconut tree will come to 79 per year.
C.R.P. No.113/10
5
has considered the land in question as a plantation and has adopted
C.R.P. No.113/10
6
the multiplier of 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
pointed out that in the case of coconut trees, several other small cultivations can be made among the coconut trees. It is true that in the State of Kerala everywhere agriculturists are making use of the space among the coconut trees also for carrying out small cultivations like tapioca, colocasia etc. In the case of a 220 KV line of this type, it is not at all possible for anybody to intrude in the space, beneath the line or near to the line, for carrying out any such cultivation, as it would be dangerous. When such small cultivations are possible in the normal course among coconut trees, it cannot be said that a property planted with coconut trees can be considered as a plantation. At the same time, when such cultivations are also possible, such a property has to be treated as an agricultural land. In such case, the multiplier of 12 has to be applied for arriving at the compensation. Therefore, this court is of the view that the court below ought to have applied the multiplier
C.R.P. No.113/10
7
of 12 in this case based on Gurcharan Singh 's case (supra).
In the result, this C.R.P. is allowed in part by modifying the impugned order and by awarding an amount of ₹3,26,400/- more, as additional compensation payable to the petitioner over and above the amount arrived at by the court below, with interest at the
C.R.P. No.113/10
8
rate of 6% per annum, from the date of cutting of the trees till the
date of realisation.
Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA , JUDGE
dl
// TRUE COPY //
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the multiplier for compensation calculation should be 12 years instead of 8 years given the land usage.
Whether the net yield calculation for coconut trees was sufficient in assessing compensation.
What is the additional compensation payable to the petitioner based on revised calculations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.S.E.B. v. LivishaReferred¶31
K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007(3) K.L.T. 1 (SC)]
State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and anotherApplied¶47
State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and another [1995 Supp.(2) S.C.C. 637] · Who else cites this
S.SUBRAMANYA IYER
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
K.S.E.B
B.KEMAL PASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
