ORDER Heard Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel representing the revision petitioners - Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, represented by its Additional General Manager, Hyderabad and others and Sri Jayanthi S.C. Sekhar, learned counsel representing the respondent in CRP No. 2222 of 2004. 2. Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel representing the revision petitioners had pointed out to the orders impugned in the civil revision petitions and would maintain that the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, had totally erred in granting interest at 9% per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization of the amount due. The learned counsel also would maintain that the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, ought to have appreciated that while dealing with a claim under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and under the said statute there is no provision for payment of interest on the compensation to the claimant. The learned counsel had also drawn a distinction between the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as to the language employed and the learned counsel also would maintain that the learned II Additional District Judge had awarded interest to the respondent which is totally without jurisdiction since there is no provision under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to award interest on compensation. 3. On the contrary, Sri Jayanthi S.C. Sekhar would maintain that a batch of civil revision petitions had been decided by this Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. rep. by its Addl. General Manager and others v. Patchukoru Appa Rao and others' and in the light of the said decision the civil revision petitions are to be dismissed. The learned counsel had also placed reliance in Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhallummci, Narayana Dossjee v. Board of TrusteeEf3, Ramachandra Rao v. State of Madras (now A.p.r, K.S.E. Beard v. Marthoma Rubber Company, India Carbon Ltd. v. State of AssarTf', Charan Singh v. Mis. Birla Textiles7 and Laxmichand v. Indore Improvement Trusf3. The learned counsel had also placed reliance in Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhallummci, Narayana Dossjee v. Board of TrusteeEf3, Ramachandra Rao v. State of Madras (now A.p.r, K.S.E. Beard v. Marthoma Rubber Company, India Carbon Ltd. v. State of AssarTf', Charan Singh v. Mis. Birla Textiles7 and Laxmichand v. Indore Improvement Trusf3. The learned counsel also would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances and also in the light of reasons recorded by the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, and further in the light of the view expressed by this Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Patchukoru Appa Rao (supra 1), the civil revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the counsel. 5. C.R.P.No. 2222 of 2004 is filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, represented by its Additional General Manager, Hyderabad and others as against the order made in TeLa.P.No. 121 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. C.R.P.No. 2256 of 2004 is filed as against the order made by the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in TeLa.P.No. 365 of 1993. C.R.P.No. 2333 of 20.04 is filed by the self-same revision petitioner as against the order made in TeLa.P.No. 90 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. While admitting the C.R.Ps., this Court granted interim stay so far as payment of interest is concerned. As can be seen from the grounds of revision in all the C.R.Ps., the only question which had been raised is in relation to the granting of interest of 9% per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization of the amount. The facts being similar in all the C.R.Ps., and the question to be decided also being common in all the C.R.Ps., and the question to be decided also being common in all the C.R.Ps., they are being disposed of by a common order. 6. As already referred to above, CoR.PoNoo 2222 of 2004 had been preferred by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and others as against the order dated 30-10-2003 in Tel. O.P. No. 121 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 6. As already referred to above, CoR.PoNoo 2222 of 2004 had been preferred by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and others as against the order dated 30-10-2003 in Tel. O.P. No. 121 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The respondent in the said CoRoPo as the petitioner filed said Tel.O.P. No. 121 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 for awarding compensation of Rs.19,05,000/- as valued by the petitioner or for a reasonable compensation as assessed by the court or by any other competent authority for the loss sustained by the petitioner due to the cutting of coconut trees and mango trees for laying of power transmission lines. It was averred in the said O.P.No. 121 of 1992 that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the dry land measuring AC.9.45% cents in Atcherla Grama Panchayat, Kasimkota Mandai, Visakhaptnam District. He raised coconut groove, mango groove and other trees in the said land and all the said trees were fruit bearing treeso The respondents undertook laying of power transmission lines in the year 1991 in between Rajanagaram and Gajuwaka and in execution of their work they propose to lay the electrical lines through the property of the petitioner and in the process of the said work, the respondents cut and removed 41 coconut trees and one cashew tree in exercise of their power vested under the Indian Telegraph Act. The respondents also served copy of intimation of the damage caused to the property of the petitioner and removable of the trees in the 1991 and subsequently, contrary to the terms, the respondent fixed an amount of Rs.42,519/- as value of the damage callsed to the said treeso The petitioner received the same with protest. The petitioner used to get nearly Rs.1500/- per year from each coconut trees as usufructs and Rs.2000/- per cashew tree. Therefore, the petitioner estimated the loss of the coconut trees and mango trees at Rs.19,05,000/- for 30 years. 7. The respondents in the said O.P., revision petitioners herein, opposed the said claim by filing counter denying the allegations made therein. It was pleaded that the petitioners are put to strict proof of the allegations made in the petition. Therefore, the petitioner estimated the loss of the coconut trees and mango trees at Rs.19,05,000/- for 30 years. 7. The respondents in the said O.P., revision petitioners herein, opposed the said claim by filing counter denying the allegations made therein. It was pleaded that the petitioners are put to strict proof of the allegations made in the petition. As per the date published by the A.P. Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, the yield of coconut per year varies from 50 to 100 and therefore, the claim of the petitioners at the rate of Rs.1500/- per coconut tree per year and Rs.2000/- per cashew tree per year is not tenable. The National Thermal Power Corporation Limited is laying lines through the country and in particular from Vijayawada to Gajuwada i.e., up to Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam and in the said process N.T.P.C had occasion to remove various types of trees belonging to several others including the coconut, cashew and other trees. The average yield of cashew nut tree per year is only 2 to 3 K.Gs. of raw nuts. The entire life of the coconut/cashew nut trees cannot be the criteria for the purpose of fixation of compensation. Every tree has several stages mainly non-fruit bearing stage, starting fruit bearing stage, attaining stability stage, fruit bearing stage and then diminishing stage. Therefore, there is no possibility for the petitioners to get continuous income for all the years at the same rate. In all the similar O.Ps., the age of the trees was also printed and it shows that it is not authenticated. The respondents did not fix compensation contrary to the terms as alleged. The respondent paid a total amount of Rs.42,519/- to the petitioner and that the claim of the petitioner for Rs.19,05,000/- is highly exaggerated and not maintainable under law and thus prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. On the strength of the pieadings, the following issues were settled: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for interest and costs? 3. Whether the Court fee paid is correct? 4. To what relief? 9. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-16 were marked. On behalf of respondents, R.Ws. 1 to 5 had been examined and Exs.B-1 to B-13 had been marked. Exs.X-1 and X-2 also had been marked. 10. 3. Whether the Court fee paid is correct? 4. To what relief? 9. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-16 were marked. On behalf of respondents, R.Ws. 1 to 5 had been examined and Exs.B-1 to B-13 had been marked. Exs.X-1 and X-2 also had been marked. 10. It appears originally the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, by order dated 15-6-1998 granted an amount of Rs.1,07,825/- for 41 coconut trees and Rs.2,250/- for one cashew tree and dismissed the rest of the claim. Aggrieved by the same, unsuccessful respondents preferred C.R.P.No. 304 of 1999 on the file of this Court and the C.R.P. was allowed and the matter was remanded to the court below to consider the evidence on record afresh and record findings. On such remand, the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether this court is competent to entertain the claim of the petitioner? 2. Whether the claim of the petitioner is within the period of limitation? 11. The learned II Additional District Judge recording reasons on the aspect of jurisdiction, on the aspect of limitation and further answered the compensation aspect on appreciation of evidence available on record at paras 12 to 26 and came to the conclusion that the petitioner in the said Tel.O.P. is entitled for Rs.65,600/- for 41 coconut trees and RS.960/- for one cashew tree. Further, the learned II Additional District Judge while answering issue No. 2 on the aspect of interest and costs recorded reasons at paras 27 to 29 and granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization of the amount. The learned II Additional District Judge also recorded further reasons at paras 30 and 31 on the court fee aspect as already referred to supra. The revision petitioners had not chosen to challenge the said findings which had been recorded by the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, but had chosen to challenge only the awarding of interest as specified above. 12. Likewise, C.R.P.No. 2256 of 2004 is preferred as against the order dated 30-10-2003 made in Tel. O.P. No. 365 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The respondent in the C.R.P., as petitioner filed the said Tel. 12. Likewise, C.R.P.No. 2256 of 2004 is preferred as against the order dated 30-10-2003 made in Tel. O.P. No. 365 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The respondent in the C.R.P., as petitioner filed the said Tel. O.P. No. 365 of 1993 under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 for awarding compensation of Rs.2,83,300/- as valued by him or for a reasonable compensation as assessed by this court or by any other competent authority for the loss sustained by the petitioner due to the cutting of various trees for laying of power transmission lines by the respondents through the petitioner's land in the year 1991. It was averred in the said Tel. O.P. that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land in S.Nos.86/2 and 87/8 of Jaggampeta Village, Kotavurtla Mandai, Visakhapatnam District. He raised number of trees in the said land and all the said trees were fruit bearing trees. The respondents undertook laying of power transmission lines in the year 1991 in between Rajangaram and Gajuwaka and in execution of their work they propose to lay the electrical lines through the property of the petitioner and in the process of the said work, the respondents cut and removed the trees that are existing in the said land of the petitioner in exercise of their power vested under the Indian Telegraph Act. The respondents also served copy of limitation of the damage caused to the property of the petitioner and removable of the trees in the year 1991 and the respondents cut and removed 3 palm trees, 1 jungle tree, 26 mango trees, 14 cashew trees and 10 coconut trees and paid RS.8992/- towards compensation for the said trees and the petitioner received the same with protest. Therefore, petitioner estimated the loss to the property and to the said trees and claimed compensation of Rs.2,83,300/-. 13. Respondents-revision petitioners denied the allegations by filing counter. It was averred in the counter that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the allegations made in the petition. Therefore, petitioner estimated the loss to the property and to the said trees and claimed compensation of Rs.2,83,300/-. 13. Respondents-revision petitioners denied the allegations by filing counter. It was averred in the counter that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the allegations made in the petition. As per the date published by the A.P. Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, the yield of coconut per year varies from 50 to 100 and therefore, the claim of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.500/- per each coconut tree per year is not tenable. The National Thermal Power Corporation Limited is laying lines throughout the country and in particular from Vijayawada to Gajuwaka i.e., up to Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam and in the said process N.T.P.C. had occasion to remove various types of trees belonging to several others including the coconut, cashew and other trees. The average yield of cashew nut tree per year is only about 2 to 3 K.Gs. of raw nuts. The entire life of the coconut/cashew nut trees cannot be the criteria for the purpose of fixation of compensation. Every tree has several stages mainly nonfruit bearing stage, starting fruit bearing' stage, attaining stability stage, fruit bearing stage and then diminishing stage. Therefore there is no possibility for the petitioner to get continuous income for all the years at the same rate. The claim of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/- per cashew tree is highly exaggerated. The respondents did not fix compensation contrary to the terms as alleged. The respondents cut and removed 32 palm trees, one jungle tree, 26 mango saplings, 14 cashew saplings and 10 coconut saplings and the amount is estimated for the said trees at Rs.8992/-. The claim of the petitioner for Rs.2,83,300/- is highly exaggerated and not maintainable under law and thus prayed to dismiss the petition. 14. On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues were settled: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for interest and costs? 3. Whether the Court fee paid is correct? 4. To what relief? 15. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W. 1 had been examined and EX.A-1 had been marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws. 1 to 5 had been examined and Exs.B-1 to B-9 had been marked. EX.X-1 also had been marked. 3. Whether the Court fee paid is correct? 4. To what relief? 15. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W. 1 had been examined and EX.A-1 had been marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws. 1 to 5 had been examined and Exs.B-1 to B-9 had been marked. EX.X-1 also had been marked. After hearing both sides, the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, by order 15-6-1998 granted an amount of Rs.26,250/- for 10 coconut trees, RS.31 ,500/- for 14 cashew tree and Rs.65,000/- for 26 mango trees and dismissed the rest of the claim. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried by way of C.R.P.No. 177 of 1999 and this Court allowed the said C.R.P. and remitted the matter back to consider the evidence on record afresh and the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, formulated the following points for consideration: 1. Whether this court is competent to entertain the claim of the petitioner? 2. Whether the claim of the petitioner is within the period of limitation? 16. The learned II Additional District Judge answered the jurisdiction aspect, limitation aspect as points 1 and 2 at paras 10 and 11 and further answered the compensation aspect and recorded reasons on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record at paras 12 to 26 and made the under noted assessment at para 26: "The compensation for the said 33 palm trees is assessed as under: PALMYRAH/PALM TREES: (33 trees) Of and below 5 mtrs. Rs.900/(15 trees) (Rs.60 x 15) Above 5 mtrs. Rs.2160/(18 trees) (Rs.120 x 18) Total Amount paid by the respondents for 33 palm trees Difference amount for which the petitioner is entitled RS.3060/- RS.1780/- RS.12801- Hence, the petitioner is who entitled difference amount of compensation for 10 coconut saplings at the rate of RS.36/- per sapling. The petitioner is entitled to the above difference amounts apart from the amount already paid by the respondents. This issue No. 1 is decided partly in favour of the petitioners" . 17. The learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam after recording reasons at paras 27 to 29 and was inclined to award 9% interest to the petitionerrespondent herein from the date of petition till the date of realization of the amount. The court free aspect had also been answered at paras 30 and 31. 18. 17. The learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam after recording reasons at paras 27 to 29 and was inclined to award 9% interest to the petitionerrespondent herein from the date of petition till the date of realization of the amount. The court free aspect had also been answered at paras 30 and 31. 18. Likewise, C.R.P.No. 2333 of 2004 is filed as against the order dated 30-10-2003 made in TeI.O.P.No. 90 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The said Tel. O.P. was filed under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 by the respondent herein as petitioner for awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- as valued by her or for a reasonable compensation as assessed by the court or by any other competent authority for the loss sustained by the petitioner due to the cutting of coconut trees for laying of power transmission lines by the respondents through the petitioner's and in the year 1991. It was pleaded in the said Tel. O.P. that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land in S.Nos. 44/8, Patta No. 222 in Timmaraupeta village of Atchutapuram Mandai, Visakhapatnam District. She raised coconut groove in the said land and all the said trees were fruit bearing trees and are aged roughly 12 years. The respondents undertook laying of power transmission lines in the year 1991 in between Rajanagaram and Gajuwaka and in execution of their work they propose to lay the electrical lines through the property of the petitioner and in the process of the said work, the respondents cut and removed 4 coconut trees in exercise of their power vested under the Indian Telegraph Act. The respondents also served copy of intimation of the damage caused to the property of the petitioner and removable of the trees in the year 1991 and subsequently, contrary to the terms, the respondents fixed an amount of Rs.4,000/- as value of the damage caused to the said trees and to the property of the petitioner and that paid the said amount of Rs.4,000/-. The petitioner received the same with protest. The petitioner received the same with protest. The petitioner raised 4 coconut trees besides other trees and all the said trees are fruit bearing trees aged about 12 years and she used to get nearly RS.500/- per year from each coconut tree as usufructs and for 10 years the yearly usufruct was Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner estimated the loss to the property and in the coconut trees at the said rate and claimed compensation of Rs.20,000/- 19. Revision petitioners herein-respondent in the said Tel. O.P., resisted the claim by filing counter stating that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the allegations made in the petition. As per the date published by the A. P. Ag ricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, the yield of coconut per year varies from 50 to 100 and therefore, the claim of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.500/-per each coconut tree per year is not tenable. The National Thermal Power Corporation Limited is laying lines through out the country and in particular from Vijayawada to Gajuwaka i.e., up to Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam and in the said process N.T.P.C. had occasion to remove various types of trees belonging to several others including the coconut, cashew and other trees. The average yield of cashewnut tree per year is only about 2 to 3 K.Gs. of raw nuts. The entire life of the coconut/cashew trees cannot be the criteria for the purpose of fixation of compensation. Every tree has several stages mainly non-fruit bearing stage, starting fruit bearing stage, attaining stability stage, fruit bearing stage and then diminishing stage. Therefore, there is no possibility for the petitioner to get continuous income for all the years at the same rate. The petitioner's claim of Rs.5,000/- per coconut tree for 10 years is highly exaggerated. In all the similar O.Ps., the age of the trees was also printed and it shows that it is not authenticated. The respondents did not fix compensation contrary to the terms as alleged. Only 4 coconut trees were cut and removed and the amount is estimated for the said ,trees at Rs.4900/- and the same has been paid to the petitioner and that the claim of the petitioner for Rs.20,000/- is highly exaggerated and not maintainable under law and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition. 20. On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues were settled: 1. 20. On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues were settled: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for interest and costs? 3. Whether the Court fee paid is correct? '" 4. To what relief? 21. On behalf of the petitioner, respondent herein, P.Ws. 1 to 4 and been examined and no documents had been marked. On behalf of respondents, petitioners herein, R.Ws. 1 to 5 had been examined and Exs.B-1 to B-7 had been marked. Exs.X-1 and X-2 had also been marked. 22. The learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam after hearing both sides and considering the material on record by order dated 15-6-1998 granted an amount of Rs.10,575/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, C.R.P.No. 330 of 1999 was preferred and this Court while setting aside the said order remitted the matter back again to the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to consider the evidence on record afresh. The learned II Additional District Judge formulated the following points for consideration: 1. Whether this court is competent to entertain the claim of the petitioner? 2. Whether the claim of the petitioner is within the period of limitation? 23. The learned II Additional District Judge after recording reasons while answering jurisdiction aspect and limitation aspect as point Nos. 1 and 2 at paras 10 and 11, answered the compensation aspect commencing from paras 12 to 27 and awarded compensation. The learned II Additional District Judge also recorded reasons while answering issue No. 2 on interest and costs aspect at paras 28 to 30 and was inclined to award 9% interest to the petitioner from the date of petition till the date of realisation of amount. The court fee aspect also had been answered recording certain reasons at paras 31 and 32 as issue No.3. 24. As already specified above, as can be seen from the grounds of revision and also submissions made by the counsel, the only question which had been raised, argued and emphasized is in relation to the awarding of interest. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 deals with power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts. Section 16 of the said Act deals with exercise of powers conferred by Section 10 and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 deals with power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts. Section 16 of the said Act deals with exercise of powers conferred by Section 10 and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority. Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been referred to in this context. The question of awarding of interest and the power or jurisdiction of the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, to make such order of awarding interest by granting compensation, in a similar Batch of C.R.Ps, had fallen for consideration before this Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Patchukoru Appa Rao (supra 1) and the learned Judge at para 18 observed as under: "Therefore, . the District Judge while acting as a civil Court in its discretion may while drawing some inference from other Acts where the interest was made a statutory provision, can award the interest at 9% per annum and the same cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. It also cannot be construed that the District Judge while sitting as a civil Court cannot invoke the provisions of Section 34 CPC for the purpose of granting interest on the enhanced rate of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The payment of interest would arise when the compensation is not paid. In these cases, admittedly, there was a dispute as to sufficiency of the compensation. Therefore, the dispute was raised before the learned District Judge, who decided the compensation to be RS.1 ,600/- per tree per annum. Thus, it must be deemed that the authority had illegally withheld Rs.600/- per tree per annum till the date of realization and as such granting of interest on that amount can neither be said to be unwarranted, arbitrary nor it can be said that in the absence of a statutory provision for awarding interest, awarding such interest by the District Court is illegal or without jurisdiction. The matter has been taken up by the District Judge, who acted as a principal court of original civil jurisdiction and decided the matter and in his discretion by invoking Section 34 of CPC, granted interest at 9% May be, the District Judge has also drawn analogy as to interest as available under the other Acts, but that itself will not make awarding of interest illegal in the capacity of a civil Court and acting as a District Judge, the provisions of Section 34 CPC were invoked and interest was awarded. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of there being a statutory provision for awarding interest the impugned Order passed by the District Judge awarding interest is arbitrary and illegal, cannot be countenanced. The learned District Judge has not committed any error in awarding interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are entitled for such interest even in the absence of a statutory provision as to awarding of interest. The interest awarded in these cases is for the delay caused in payment of sufficient compensation. Therefore, the learned District Judge sitting as a civil Court has rightly awarded interest on enhanced compensation. As such, the Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed." 25. In the light of the decision referred to above and also in the light of the reasons recorded by the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, while deciding civil revision petitions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the orders impugned do not suffer from any illegality whatsoever and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.