PETRONET CCK LTD Vs. THRESIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petroleum pipeline was drawn through the land belonging to the first respondent, which has an extent of 2.46 Acres. An extent of 10.82 Ares of land was actually used for laying pipeline underneath the soil. Compensation was awarded by the competent authority under The Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (Act No. 50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Dissatisfied with the award, the first respondent filed O.P.No. 152 of 2000 before the Court of the District Judge, Palakkad. The court below enhanced the compensation. Petronet C.C.K. Co. Ltd., the requisitioning authority, is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge. Out of the total extent of 10.82 Ares used for laying pipeline, an extent of 6.16 Ares is a dry land and an extent of 4.66 Ares is part of a rubber plantation. For laying pipeline, 54 rubber trees and three teak trees were cut and removed. The competent authority held that the first respondent was entitled to land value taking into account the value at Rs. . 27,272/- per Are for dry land and Rs. . 12,360/- per Are for the rubber plantation. The competent authority arrived at the total value of 10.82 Ares at Rs. . 2,25,600/- and a sum of Rs. . 22,560/- was awarded, the amount being 10% of the market value, as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act. The court below did not interfere with the total value of the land as fixed by the competent authority. However, the court below held that apart from the land value payable under Section 10(4) of the Act, the first respondent was entitled to 30% of the total value of the land as compensation for diminution of land value. A sum of Rs. . 67,680/- was awarded by the court below on this count. As regards the value of trees cut, the competent authority awarded a sum of Rs. . 58,444/- for the rubber trees. For arriving at that figure, the competent authority took into account 60% of the income as the expenses for maintaining the rubber plantation. The court below, relying on the decision of the Division Bench in A.S.No. 299 of 1973 (1977 KLT SN 24 Case No. 63), held that deduction of one-third amount as the expenses in the case of rubber trees was to be made. Accordingly, the compensation payable for cutting and removing 54 rubber trees was worked out at Rs. . 97,416/- as against the compensation of Rs. . 58,444/- granted by the competent authority.

(2.) There was no dispute regarding the price of rubber fixed by the competent authority. The method of computing the capitalization value of the trees was also not disputed by the claimant, except the expenditure. The court below also did not interfere with the compensation paid on account of cutting of non-yielding rubber trees, coconut trees and other miscellaneous trees.

(3.) The court below awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs. . 1,06,652/-, the amount being the total of Rs. . 38,972/- as enhancement of the compensation for tree cutting and Rs. . 67,680/- as compensation for diminution of land value.