JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 16(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Orders of the Curt of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, dated 30.04.2004 in O.P.No.192 of 1990.) 1. CRP.Nos.863 to 867 of 2005, 769 to 771 of 2005, 567 to 569, 1463 to 1466, 449 to 458 and 655 to 657 of 2005 are filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, and C.R.P.Nos.2722 to 2731 of 2005 are filed by the land owners as against the common order dated 30.04.2004 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge Coimbatore in the respect of OPs. 2. As the issue involved in all these civil revision petitions are one and the same and all these civil revision petitions are arising out of common order, hence this court decided to dispose the above civil revision petitions by this common order. 3. A recapitulation and resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these revision petitions would run thus: (i) The Power grid Corporation of India Limited, in the process of laying high tension wires in the space over the lands of various farmers, virtually, was constrained to invoke the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), and consequently after complying with the necessary provisions, started using the concerned portions of the land and that too after cutting down trees, in the process of laying such high tension electric wire. (ii) The authority concerned, after issuing notice conducted enquiry and assessed the value of compensation payable to the respective land owners. (iii) On being objected to by the land owners, the matter was referred to the District Court for adjudication. After hearing both sides, the learned District Judge passed the orders. The following tabulation would reveal the details: S.No C.R.P. No NO. of Trees cut down Value assessed and awarded by the Court below 1. 863 141 5000/- 2. 655 77 5000/- 3. 864 129 6000/- 4. 769 28 6000/- 5. 771 48+1 5000/-+1000/- 6. 770 - - 7. 865 108 5000/- 8. 867 33 5000/- 9. 866 31 5000/- 10. 457 61 5000/- 11. 456 93 5000/- 12. 568 70 5000/- 13. 455 1 5000/- 4. Being aggrieved by such assessment, both the Power grid Corporation of India as well as land owners (Petitioners herein) preferred these civil revision petitions as stated above. 770 - - 7. 865 108 5000/- 8. 867 33 5000/- 9. 866 31 5000/- 10. 457 61 5000/- 11. 456 93 5000/- 12. 568 70 5000/- 13. 455 1 5000/- 4. Being aggrieved by such assessment, both the Power grid Corporation of India as well as land owners (Petitioners herein) preferred these civil revision petitions as stated above. 5. In fact, some of the land owners have prayed for enhancement of the compensation and Power grid Corporation has prayed for reducing the same awarded by the District Judge. 6. All these matters are taken together for discussion. 7. When the above CRPs along with other CRPs came up before this Court in previous occasions at that time on behalf of Power grid Corporation of India Ltd, the learned counsel, argued that he is restricting his argument only to the extent that the multiplier 8 should be applied and not 10, as virtually applied by the District Judge in calculating and assessing the compensation. He also submitted that in some of the cases, the land owners themselves have not asked for any enhancement at a rate assessed by the District Judge. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the land owners in CRP.Nos.2722 to 2731 of 2005, the petitioners argued that: (i) Solatium is contemplated under S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Even though the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, is as silent could be, yet the judicial decisions emerged there under would unambiguously and unequivocally contemplate at the assessment of compensation should be in pari materia with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, wherefore, awarding solatium and interest etc., would automatically follow. But in none of the cases here, solatium was awarded by the authority concerned or the District Judge, and therefore it warrants interference in these C.R.Ps. (ii) Ultimately, the learned counsel argued further that: (a) Solatium should be awarded on the amount assessed by the District Judge. (b) The multiplier virtually, 10 adopted by the District Judge is not at all on the higher side, because after cutting down the trees, the farmers are having nothing to do with the land, which virtually amounted to Land Acquisition itself. (c) Under the high tension wires, no fruitful cultivation is possible and even before taking the high tension wire over the land of the farmers, they were not cultivating anything except coconut and other trees. (c) Under the high tension wires, no fruitful cultivation is possible and even before taking the high tension wire over the land of the farmers, they were not cultivating anything except coconut and other trees. In as much as the trees were cut and high tension wire are passing over the land, the question of putting into beneficial use the land would not arise and as such, it amount to land acquisition itself. 9. After considering all aspects the above CRPs disposed by this Court by citing various courts and the Apex Court orders whereby dismissing the petitioners CRP and CRP Nos. 2722 to 2731 of 2005 and modified the compensation be reduced from Rs.5,000 to Rs. 4,000/- per tree, against which the petitioners were approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and filed Appeal against the order passed in the above said CRPs by raising grounds for enhancement of compensation by fixing yielding life of coconut trees and solatium and diminishing land value not taken by the District Court as well as this Court, when the Civil Appeals in Civil Appeal Nos.8319-41 of 2014 were disposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28.08.2014 whereby remit the above matters to this Hon'ble Court for considering the following aspects i.e. “What needs to be re-examined is whether the valuation of the coconut trees is correct. The basic the submission of the Counsel for the appellants is that the yielding age of coconut trees is arbitrarily fixed at 25 years. It is urged that the District Judge came to a conclusion that the coconut trees were 15 years old. Then he referred to the expert’s evidence which stated that coconut trees start yielding when they are 5 to 7 years old and give yield for 40 years and give yield up to 75 years. It is urged that in the circumstances it is not understood why the coconut trees which were held to be 15 years old would yield coconuts only for 25 years. The High Court has confirmed this exercise. Though we do not want to express any opinion on this, we feel that this question needs to be re examined by the High Court. The High Court has confirmed this exercise. Though we do not want to express any opinion on this, we feel that this question needs to be re examined by the High Court. The District Judge has followed yield basis and made no reference to diminution of land value obviously because there was no prayer made in that regard in the appellants application nor was any submission advanced on the said issue. It is only in revision memo filed in the High Court that points regarding diminution of land value, solatium and interest were urged. As we have already noted after coming to a conclusion that value of entire land is diminished the High Court on the basis of Judgments of this court did not grant separate compensation for diminution of value of land because the District Judge has followed yield basis and applied multiplier. When a categorical finding is recorded by the High Court that there is diminution of value of the entire land, more attention needs to be focused on this aspect. If the submission of the appellants that the coconut trees are undervalue is accepted, then applying multiplier to the increased value, the appellants will get more compensation which will have element of Increase in diminution of land value also. As stated by this Court, for determining compensation there is no fixed formula. There cannot be any hard-and-fast rule. For fruit bearing trees, compensation could be decided on yield basis. The status of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid there over, the extent of the line thereon, whether the high voltage line passes over a small track of land or through middle of the land, the value of the land and other relevant factors will have to be kept in mind for determining the compensation. The fact that owner of the land may lose his right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used will also have to be taken into account. It is urged by the appellants that when the solatium has not been granted, instead of applying multiplier, the District judge could have granted the minimized cost of compensation of Rs. 500/- per coconut tree for 25 years i.e., Rs. 12,500/- per tree for 141 trees, which has not been done. It is urged by the appellants that when the solatium has not been granted, instead of applying multiplier, the District judge could have granted the minimized cost of compensation of Rs. 500/- per coconut tree for 25 years i.e., Rs. 12,500/- per tree for 141 trees, which has not been done. It is submitted that in 2009, the respondents have granted compensation to one S. Chinnaswamy on this basis. We make it clear that this statement was made by counsel for the appellants across the bar in this court and it is vehemently disputed by the respondents. We are, therefore, not taking it into consideration. However its correctness needs to be ascertained. In the circumstances, we remit the matter to the High Court. The High Court shall after hearing the appellants and the respondents consider the question whether the coconut trees are undervalued in the context of argument that there is diminution of value of entire land and having regard to the fact that the multiplier method is applied. We make it clear that the remand is only for the limited purpose stated above and the scope of remand shall not be expanded. We leave all questions of law and fact open. Nothing said by us in this judgment should be treated as expression of our opinion on the merits of the case. We also make it clear that the remand is limited o the appellants before us. Needless to say that if the High Court decides to enhance the compensation over and above what the appellants have already received, the difference of amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellants. However, the amount of compensation which is already paid to the appellants should not be further reduced”. 10. Needless to say that if the High Court decides to enhance the compensation over and above what the appellants have already received, the difference of amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellants. However, the amount of compensation which is already paid to the appellants should not be further reduced”. 10. After remand back the above civil revision petitions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court heard the petitioners counsel and the respondents counsel and their citations, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit in regarding with age of the coconut trees the trial court mistakenly taking note of the yielding age of coconut trees are 25 years and also the cut down coconut trees are 15 years old without taking note of experts evidence adduced by the agricultural university professor the expert opined that the petitioners coconut trees are 5 to 7 years old and give yield for 75 year, on the other hand the trial court not taking into consideration of expert evidence, if that aspect is considered properly then the petitioners would have received more compensation and also the Apex Court clearly felt that aspect should be re examined, that argument might to have accepted and to decide the yield age and age of the coconut trees, the respondents not put forth any evidence to deny the expert evidence, hence this court come to conclusion that the expert evidence having some force and no other option except to arrive the age of coconut trees are 5to 7 years and yield age is 75 years. 11. The Learned Counsel further submit that in regarding with diminution of land value the Hon'ble Apex Court held since the trial court as well as the High Court not discussed the diminution of land value, since the petitioners not urged in their application and no prayer has been made, but the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the entire aspect that diminution of land value and solatium and interest and observed that the coconut trees are undervalued is accepted then applying multiplier to the increased value the petitioners will get more compensation which will have element of increase in diminution of land value also and further the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "As stated by this Court in Livisha, for determining compensation there is no fixed formula. There cannot be any hard-and-fast rule. There cannot be any hard-and-fast rule. For fruit bearing trees, compensation could be decided an yield basis The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid there over, the extent of the line thereon, whether the high voltage line passes over a small track of land or through middle of the land, the value of the land and other relevant factors will have to be kept in mind for determining the compensation”. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the owner of the land may lose their right to use the property that also will be considered while determining the diminution of the land value, but the trial court not considered the same and simply stated that the petitioners are not prayed for, but when they prepared CRP before this Court they filed memo to that aspect and the same was accepted by this Court, hence the diminution of the land value also should decide, when the respondents erecting the electricity towers at the area of 5 cents, since they erected four tower posts and hence the petitioners could not use the same and moreover under the 400 K.V tower electrical line the agricultural should not supposed to utilize the land and the cattle also cannot be tied in the tower poles and hence they lost the land value and hence that may be considered while fixing the compensation. 13. 13. The Learned Counsel further submits that and cited the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ-C No.6278 of 2011, in that judgment the UP High Court held that authority Under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act is bound to pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them and also further submits that there is a power to locate a tower over the land possessed by private individuals and such individual would be entitled for the compensation for the damage sustained by him, hence the loss of income in the place of erecting towers and the petitioners cannot sell their land at best price due to the said tower lines erected in the middle of the land and hence the land value automatically reduced, hence the diminution of land value should ascertain and value of the land should be assessed as Rs 2 lakhs per cent the said contention of the petitioners are not denied by the respondents. 14. The counsel for petitioners put forth his argument that value of the coconut trees comes around Rs.20,000/- per tree since the respondents themselves arrived and passed award for compensation to the tune of Rs.18,860/- per tree that was assessed by the respondents on 24.08.2017, but the trial court even though assessed value of the coconut tree to the tune Rs.12,500/- per tree, but reduced Rs.5,000/- per tree without any basis, only on the assumption the said rate has been fixed, even in the Hon'ble Apex Court that rate has not been accepted and remitted back for reconsider, the counsel for petitioners submit that the respondents themselves in several occasions fixed Rs.18,860/- per tree and recently the Tamil Nadu Government assessed value at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per tree for 8 way road from Chennai to Salem. Hence the petitioners are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per tree. 15. Hence the petitioners are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per tree. 15. The Learned Counsel would submit that in regarding with solatium already decided in similar cases the solatium has been granted and moreover as per Indian Telegraph Act or Indian Electricity Act not prescribed any procedure for payment of compensation for erecting tower lines hence in the land acquisition act come into rescue, in that land acquisition act the 30% the solatium to be awarded along with compensation and now recently the Central Government brought the Act called as The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30 of 2013), as per the said Act the petitioners are entitled to get 100% solatium and get market value of the trees in double time in this connection the respondents counsel not come forward to deny such argument and this Hon'ble Court come to conclusion the petitioners are entitled to get benefits of solatium and interest at the rate of 9%. 16. Per contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, would submit that the Learned District Judge without considering the actual age of the coconut trees and its yielding capacity has fixed the amount and adopted 10 year multiplier which is on higher side and hence this Court before remand by the Hon’ble Apex Court has rightly reduced the multiplier and quantum of compensation amount per coconut tree which is just and proper compensation and therefore prayed this Court to reduce the compensation awarded by the learned District Judge. The learned standing counsel would further submit that even after erection of tower line the land owners could use the land and continue agriculture operation as they did before erection of tower line, since the line is passing through over the agricultural land of the petitioners. Hence the question of diminution of market land does not arise. 17. The scope of remand made by the Hon’ble Apex Court is very limited to the extent to decide whether the coconut trees are undervalued in the context of diminution of value of entire land with regard to the factum of multiplier adopted?. 18. Hence the question of diminution of market land does not arise. 17. The scope of remand made by the Hon’ble Apex Court is very limited to the extent to decide whether the coconut trees are undervalued in the context of diminution of value of entire land with regard to the factum of multiplier adopted?. 18. Accordingly the sole issue to be decided by this Court is whether the compensation arrived at by the Learned District Judge in as much as the value and multiplier adopted pertaining to life and the yield of a coconut Tree is liable to be interfered with or affirmed?. 19. In the case on hand admittedly through the petitioners’ lands the high voltage power lines has been erected by the 1st respondent Power Grid Corporation and because of the same the coconut trees and other trees standing over it has been removed and certain Trees were damaged. According to the revision petitioners because of the erection of high voltage tower, the market value of fertile cultivation lands of petitioners has become diminished. 20. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that though the learned District Judge found that the yielding life of the coconut tree is more than 40 years as against the Expert opinion at 75 years, but has calculated only for 25 years. Hence the District Court fixed the compensation, per coconut tree at Rs.12,500/- for 25 years. The Learned District Judge after taking into account of natural wastage, had applied 10 multiplier and fixed compensation of Rs.5000/- per coconut tree and based on that a sum of Rs.7,05,000/- was awarded for 141 coconut trees. Previously this Hon’ble Court has reduced the multiplier from 10 to 8 and also reduced the value of per coconut tree from Rs.5000/- to Rs. 4000/- which was put to challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the matter was remanded back for re fixation of the quantum in line with the stipulation made in the remand. 21. I have carefully gone through the entire records and heard the arguments made by either side. 22. It appears that admittedly 141 coconut trees belonging to the petitioners are removed during erection of High Tension power lines through the agricultural lands of the petitioners. 23. 21. I have carefully gone through the entire records and heard the arguments made by either side. 22. It appears that admittedly 141 coconut trees belonging to the petitioners are removed during erection of High Tension power lines through the agricultural lands of the petitioners. 23. In the said context for determination of compensation per coconut tree the expert has opined that the coconut trees would yield from 5 to 7 years and will continue to yield for more than 75 years. 24. Taking into account of the above expert opinion, the learned District Judge has fixed compensation for 141 coconut trees at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per coconut tree for 10 years, calculating that a coconut tree will yield 151 coconuts per year and that a coconut was arrived at value of Rs. 4/- (151 X 4=Rs.600). 25. From the said amount of Rs.600/-, an amount of Rs.100/- was deducted towards the maintenance and therefore Rs.500/- was fixed per coconut tree and applying multiplier of 10, amount of Rs.5000/- was awarded as compensation. 26. At this juncture, it is seen that though the learned District Judge has come to conclusion that yield of coconut trees will be for 25 year and fixed Rs.12,500/- as compensation per coconut tree. However without any justification reduced the multiplier from 25 years to 10 years, which in the opinion of this court is a clear case of undervaluation. 27. The expert has opined that the coconut tree would yield for 75 years and the coconut trees from the petitioners’ land were removed are 15 years old. Therefore even if average yielding period is taken, in my considered opinion the appropriate multiplier would be 25 years and the same would be just and proper. 28. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court while remanding the matter to this Court has categorically observed vide para-18 of the order that while deciding the value per coconut tree, this Court shall borne in mind about the diminishing of petitioners’ land value and other relevant factors. I am in full agreement with the said observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, naturally after erection of High Tension Tower Line over the land of the petitioners, the value of the land will be reduced compared with other lands and further, they cannot do any agricultural operation in between the high voltage tower. I am in full agreement with the said observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, naturally after erection of High Tension Tower Line over the land of the petitioners, the value of the land will be reduced compared with other lands and further, they cannot do any agricultural operation in between the high voltage tower. Therefore, the learned District Judge while fixing the compensation should have also taken into consideration of the above said factor of diminution of land value. But in this case, the learned District Judge has not considered the factum of diminution of market value of the land of the petitioners. 29. Considering over all aspects of the case, I am of the view that the value of yield per coconut tree arrived by the learned District Judge cannot be said to be proper and therefore it is liable to be increased that the petitioners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per coconut tree. Hence, as discussed above the petitioners are entitled to get compensation per coconut tree for 25 years at the rate of Rs.20,000/-. 30. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised several grounds for enhancement of compensation in other heads, this Court is not inclined to go into the same as the scope of remand by the Hon’ble Apex Court is very limited as discussed above. 31. In the result: (a) the petitioners in CRP.Nos.2722 to 2731 of 2010 filed by the land owners are allowed and the petitioners are entitled Rs.20,000/- for each tree with interest at the rate of 9% with 30% Solatium; (b) the respondents viz., Power Grid Corporation is directed to pay the said amount with interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (c) the Civil Revision Petitions in CRP.Nos.863 to 867 of 2005, 769 to 771 of 2005, 567 to 569, 1463 to 1466, 449 to 458 and 655 to 657 of 2005 filed by the Power Grid Corporation are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.