PETRONET CCK LTD Vs. K.V. VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent in O.P.13/2001 on the file of the District Court, Palakkad has come up in revision challenging order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the learned District Judge in the said O.P. awarding an enhanced compensation of 75,598/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment to the petitioner in the O.P. under Petroleum and Minerals Pipe Lines (Acquisition of right of user in land) Act, 1962(hereinafter referred to as 'Act 52 of 1962).

(2.) The petitioner before the court below is the owner in possession of 2 acres of dry land in Sy.Nos.317/2 and 317/6. It has been averred that the property was planted with high yielding variety of rubber and other valuable trees. Out of the said property, the petitioner herein had acquired 0.1195 hectares of land which is scheduled as 'B' in the O.P., for the purpose of laying pipe lines and for other connected activities. 65 yielding rubber trees, one teak tree, three cashew trees and other valuable trees of different varieties were cut and removed from the 'B' schedule property. Though the petitioner in the O.P. had submitted a claim form for compensation, the competent authority, who is the 2nd respondent, had awarded an amount of 83,211/- only as compensation, which according to the petitioner in the O.P. is too low. According to the petitioner in the O.P., an amount of 50,000/- ought to have been granted towards diminution in land value and further a higher amount ought to have been awarded towards the loss sustained on account of cutting and removing of the valuable trees. As the petitioner in the O.P. was dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the competent authority under Section 10(1) of Act 52 of 1962, he approached the learned District Judge through the O.P. under Section 10(2) of Act 52 of 1962. The learned District Judge through the impugned order awarded enhanced compensation of 49,023/- payable in respect of yielding rubber trees cut and removed. Over and above it, the learned District Judge has granted an amount of 26,575/- being diminution in land value.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for the respondents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned District Judge was erred in awarding diminution in land value in this case as such an item of compensation does not find a place in Section 10 of Act 52 of 1962. Any such award of compensation under the head of diminution in land value is not called for as per any of the provisions of the said Act, it is argued. Over and above it, it has been pointed out that the learned District Judge has considered the net yield of the rubber trees cut and removed from the property as 2/3rd of the gross yield. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, only 40% of the gross yield could have been considered as net yield by the learned District Judge.