These two revision petitions are directed against the orders dated 10.07.2014 in I.A.No.1733/2013 and I.A.No.1743/2013 respectively. 2. The properties of the respondents in these petitions were used for drawing electric line by the petitioner-KSEB and in that process, they cut and removed certain trees in the properties of the respondents. Aggrieved by the amount granted which is alleged to be too inadequate, according to the respondents, they preferred Original petitions before the District Court concerned and there was delay of 1693 days in filing the said petitions seeking enhancement of compensation. The Board filed detailed counter affidavits pointing out that there was no justification for condoning the delay and there was inordinate delay in filing the petitions.
3. The court below, after anxious consideration of the materials before it, felt that it is only just and proper that the delay be condoned and the matter be heard on merits. Accordingly, the petitions for condonation of delay were allowed. The said orders are assailed in these revision petitions.
4. Sri.Sajeevkumar K.Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the court below has not given any reason as to why it thought fit and proper to condone delay especially when the delay was inordinate one. Learned counsel emphasised that when there is inordinate delay, adequate reason has to be shown and there is no attempt to ascertain whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay.
5. As far as the grievance regarding the order is concerned, there may be substance in the complaint. But the fact remains that the respondents had pointed out that they had in fact entrusted the matter to a counsel who did not file petitions within time. The court below found no reason to disbelieve them. Merely because a detailed order is not given, that is not a ground to interfere with the order unless there is irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the order. Moreover, the court below has chosen to exercise its discretion in favour of the respondents and since it is not shown that the discretion is not judicially exercised, interference is not warranted. However, it is made clear that the court below will take note of the period of delay while awarding interest on enhanced compensation if any.
With the above observations, these revision petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp // True Copy // P.A. to Judge.