IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.No. 1344 of 1997(G) ----------------------- ( OP. (ELE.) / 1988 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- CHERUVATH KANDATHIL KALLIANI AMMA, D/O.AMPADI NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT KOTTAYAM AMSOM, ERUVATTY DESOM THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2.12.2010 , THE COURT ON 02/12/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CRP No.1344 of 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 2nd December 2010 Order Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. This is a civil revision petition filed challenging an award passed by the court below on an original petition relating to compensation for cutting of trees. There appears to be some controversy as regards the fixation of diminution in land value. The procedure adopted by the court below of having issued, what is called, a preliminary award and then a quantification purportedly on the basis of uncontested statements, does not stand on the face of the judgment of this court in K.S.E.B. v. Philip Antony (2005(3) KLT 396). The statement filed by the claimant, which has been treated as uncontroverted, has not even been made part of the impugned award. 2. On the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the court below, in particular, with reference to the question of diminution of land value and CRP 1344/97 2 also regarding the compensation for the trees, as ought to be fixed in terms of the evidence on record. The court below would stand well advised to go by the law as enunciated in Philip Antony (supra). We leave open all questions for the decision of the trial court. To enable such purpose, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded in its entirety for disposal denovo. 3. We also record the submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner that the order of this court in CRP No.1123/07 is relevant. We, however, leave it to the wisdom of the court below to consider the applicability of the law laid down in that order, to the case in hand. Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, Judge P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta CRP 1344/97 3 CRP 1344/97 4