A M NANJAN Vs. MADRAS STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision petition against an order of the learned Additional district Judge, Coimbatore, dismissing O. P. 61 of 1969 filed under S. 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 13 of 1885, for payment of a sum of Rs. 95171-50 as compensation for the wattle trees and plants cut and removed by the Madras State Electricity Board. The facts of the case are as follows :-An extent of 18.34 acres in S. No. 9/1 of Mulligoor village was acquired for the site of the Emerald Dam and the Kundah project. Though the notification for the acquisition of the site under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was published only on 1-51957, the Madras State Electricity Board (to be referred hereinafter as the Board) entered the lands even in 1956 and cut and removed the trees thereon and sold them away in auction. 19002 wattle trees and plants of various girths and sizes appear to have been this cut and sold away by the respondent-Board. Exs. A-1 to A-7 are the receipts and Ex. A-8 is the certified copy of a receipt issued by the Board for the trees thus cut and carried away. Subsequent to the notification, 10672 trees and plants were, according to the Commissioner who was appointed in a suit to which reference will be made hereafter, standing on the land.

(2.) On 6-6-1956 the department wrote Ex. A-12 to the revision petitioner in reply to his letter that the Collector had been addressed and orders were awaited fixing the compensation for the wattle trees and plants which had been cut and carried away.

(3.) On 10-6-1957, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing the compensation payable for the lands and some other trees which were standing on the land when the notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published. But for the wattle trees and plants standing on the lands prior to the date of the notification which had been cut and removed, no compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and the claimant was asked to look to the Electricity Board for compensation for the trees cut down by the respondent-board. Therefore, the claimant approached the Board for payment of compensation. By Ex. A.16 dated 2-9-1957, the Board informed the revision petitioner that Government Orders were awaited for payment of compensation for wattle trees and plants. But no compensation was made.