S. Subramanya Iyer v Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd; The Special Tahasildar (LA) No. II; K.S.E.B.

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: -------------------------------------------- 1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REP. BY THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, KAYAMKULAM TRANSMISSION LINES OFFICE, NANGIAR KULANGARA, HARIPAD. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA) NO.II, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., HARIPAD. 3. K.S.E.B, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 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 16[th] 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. 2. For the drawal of the Kayamkulam - Edamon 220 KV 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. 3. The matter has got a checkered career. Twice the petitioner had to approach this court dissatisfied with the orders passed by the court below. Finally, the court below was directed to calculate the compensation as per the guidelines in **K.S.E.B. v. Livisha** [2007(3) K.L.T. 1 (SC)]. It seems that the court below has relied on the decision in **Livisha** 's case(supra) and thereby calculated the _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. 4. Heard Shri.S.Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri.Millu Dandapani, the learned standing counsel for the first respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out 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. 6. It is a common knowledge that in every two months harvesting can be there in respect of a coconut tree. Even if it is taken that one bunch will bear 10 coconuts, two bunches can be taken in every two months. In such case, the gross yield will be 120 per year from a coconut tree. The yield depends from tree to tree. In some cases, the gross yield may go up to 250. _C.R.P. No.113/10_ 5 7. It seems that the court below has taken the view that after deducting 15% towards agricultural expenses and droppings, 4080 could be considered as the net yield from all the 61 coconut trees. By considering the aforesaid aspects, this court is of the view that the court below ought to have taken double the number of coconuts considered by the court below as the net yield per year (4080 x 2). In such case, the net yield will come to 8160 per year. 8. The court below has correctly arrived at the price of coconut as ₹5/- per coconut during the period in question. The same does not call for any interference at all. As per the guidelines given by the Apex Court in paragraph 3 of **Gurcharan Singh** 's case (supra), it seems that for arriving at the compensation on the basis of capitalisation method, in the case of a plantation 8 years' multiplier should be the appropriate multiplier, and in the case of agricultural land it should be 12 years' multiplier. The court below 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). 9. When calculating the compensation by taking the gross yield as 8160 as aforesaid, by multiplying it with 5 and then with 12, the amount will be ₹4,89,600/- . The amount arrived at by the court below is ₹1,63,200/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the balance amount of ₹3,26,400/- as additional compensation from the first respondent. 10. Regarding the interest, even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has forwarded a request that a higher rate of interest ought to have been applied by the court below, this court is of the view that the interest rate that can be granted is only 6%, as applied by the court below. 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 //_