IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRP.No. 122 of 2007() --------------------- OPELE.104/2000 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SRI.B.NARAYANAN, S/O.K.APPA, AGED 35 YEARS, AYYAPARA, BAKKUI, P.O.PERIYA. 2. SRI.B.BALAN, S/O.K.APPA, AGED 41 YEARS, AYYAPARA, BAKKUI, P.O.PERIAYA. 3. SRI.B.BABU, S/O.K.APPA, AGED 38 YEARS, AYYAPARA, BAKKUI, P.O.PERIYA. 4. SMT.B.ROHINI, W/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 26 YEARS, AYYAPARA, BAKKUI, P.O. PERIYA. 5. SMT.B.MADHAVI, W/O.KUTTAN, AGED 31 YEARS, AYYAPARA, BAKKUI, P.O. PERIYA. 6. SMT.KAMALA, W/O.KUNCHIKANNAN, AGED 25 YEARS, BAKKUI, PO. PERIYA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2011 ALONG WITH CRP NO.158/07, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.122 and 158 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011 Order The Kerala State Electricity Board is the revision petitioner in both these revisions. For the purpose of drawing 110 KV electric line, the yielding trees and other trees situated in the properties of the respondents were cut and removed by the Board. Complaining of the inadequacy of the compensation, the respective respondents filed petitions before the District Court, Kasaragod for getting enhanced compensation. After considering the Commissioner's report and sketch and other documents produced by the parties, the impugned common order was passed by the court below. The petitioner in O.P.(Ele.)No.62 of 2000 which is the subject matter of C.R.P.No.158 of 2007 was awarded a total amount of Rs.88,033/- as enhanced compensation, whereas the petitioner in O.P.(Ele.)No.104 of 2000 which is the subject matter of C.R.P.No.122 of 2007 was awarded a total amount of Rs.50,664/- as enhanced compensation. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the whole procedure adopted by the court below is illegal and on that ground itself the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. CRP Nos.122 & 158/2007 2 2. It is pointed out that the court below has passed a preliminary order and directed the parties to file calculation statement and thereafter a final award was passed, which is not contemplated by the statute. In this connection, the learned counsel relied upon the decision in K.S.E.B. v. Philip Antony (2005(3) KLT 396) wherein it was held: “There is no provision in the statute concerned or in the general law as to procedure that empower the Court to perform the assessment of compensation in two phases as 'preliminary award' and 'final award'. Just filing a statement by the petitioner and stating no objection by the counsel for the respondent and admitting and accepting the statement filed by the Court without mentioning the details of the same in the judgment is downright unacceptable.” The above decision was followed by the Division Bench in C.R.P.No.1344 of 1997. It is seen that the required particulars are not seen furnished in the judgment as to how the compensation was arrived at for the trees. In para 8 of the impugned order, it was stated that the value has been refixed as CRP Nos.122 & 158/2007 3 per the guidelines provided in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. [ 2000 (1) KLT 542 (FB) ]. The above decision was overruled by the Apex Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007(3) KLT 1). That apart, even if the court below has followed the decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (supra), there should have been materials to discern how the compensation was arrived at. The particulars were not mentioned in the order passed by the court below. As stated earlier, a preliminary award was passed and directed the parties to file a calculation statement. Thereafter, without stating any reason, accepting the statements, awards were passed. As such, without any cogent material or data, the compensation was awarded by the court below. In the absence of sufficient materials which should have been stated in the order, there is no other alternative but to remand the matter to the court below for fresh consideration. 3. In the result, both these revision petitions are allowed. The impugned orders in O.P.(Ele.)Nos.104/2000 and 62/2000 are set aside and remanded to the court below. The court below will dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible having regard CRP Nos.122 & 158/2007 4 to the fact that the petitions have been pending for more than ten years. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd CRP Nos.122 & 158/2007 5