Court erred in assessing property compensation without adhering to expert testimony and precedent, necessitating remand for re-evaluation.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 29.08.2017 in O.P.(Ele) No.487 of 2011 passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge-II, Kollam.

2. The revision petitioner is the petitioner in the original petition. The original petition has been filed by the petitioner herein under Sections 10 and 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 , seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., for the trees cut and removed from his property for the purpose of drawing a 400 kV electric line/erecting tower from Thenkasi to Edamon. Two main issues raised in this revision petition are:-

A) The assessment of the value of the yielding trees is not in conformity with the settled principles.

B) There is error in the fixation of the land value.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that, the learned District Judge, based on the deposition of the Agricultural Officer, Chithara under Section 32(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, produced in another original petition viz., OP (Electricity) No.197 of 2006, assessed and fixed the yield of the trees and their value. It is further contended that, after accepting the deposition of the Agricultural Officer in evidence, the learned District Judge made substantial reduction from the yield stated by the Agricultural Officer without assigning any reason. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is contrary to the decision of this Court inSasidharan Nair v . Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd [ 2023 : KER : 84945 wherein it has been held thus:

“5..........As rightly contended, after accepting the deposition of the Agricultural Officer under Section 32(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, treating it to be the opinion made by an official in relation to his professional duty about the existence of matters of public or general importance, the court below has fixed the annual yield and the price of various agricultural products at deviance from the statement of the expert. Moreover, no reason is assigned for such deviance also.”

4. I am in complete agreement with the view taken by this Court in Sasidharan Nair (supra). After accepting the deposition of the Agricultural Officer under Section 32(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, treating it as an opinion made by a public official in the discharge of his professional duty, the learned District Judge cannot fix the annual yield and the price of various agricultural products in deviation from the expert’s statement without assigning any reason.

5. As regards the fixation of land value, it is contended by the petitioner that Ext.A11 exemplar deed brought out in evidence which could have been the touchstone for determination of compensation payable for identically situated land was ignored by the learned District Judge and the market value of the property was fixed based on mere assumption. On going through the impugned order, I find force in the said argument. The fixation of land value is not based on materials on record.

6. The learned counsel on both sides submitted that in the light of the decision of this Court in Sasidharan Nair (supra) which dealt with similar issues, the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge requires fresh consideration.

7. I find that the learned District Judge has erred in fixing the value of trees as well as the land value. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the original petition is remanded for fresh consideration and disposal on the basis of evidence already on record and in the light of the observations made above. The learned District Judge shall consider all relevant contentions raised by both parties and dispose of the original petition in accordance with law. The