IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE9H DAY OF JANUARY201419TH POUSHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 2517 of 2006 (Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- OORPOYIL POULOSE, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED56YEARS, OORPOYIL HOUSE, POST MATTILIYAM, VIA VELLAMUNDA, WAYANAD670731. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, RERPESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.PAKMALAYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0901-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ WP(C).No. 2517 of 2006 (Y) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- P1: COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL MANANTHAVADY IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND ONE THONDUNGAL JACOB AS PER ORDER
DATED293/1975 IN S.M.C.NO.306/1975 P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
IN O.S.NO.19/2002 OF THE MUNSIFFS MAGISTRATE COURT MANANTHAVADY, DATED208/2003 P3: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL A.A.NO.108/2003 P4: COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.NO.299/2003 DATED1411/2003 P5: COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED306/2004 P6: COPY OF THE ORDER
OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR DATED156/2005 P7: COPY OF THE ORDER
OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR IN A.A.NO.108/2003 DATED67/2005 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT ------------------------------------ NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
================== W.P.(C).No. 2517 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 9th day of January, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner obtained Ext.P1 certificate of purchase under Section 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in respect of 3.50 acres of land in R.S.No.677/1 of Thondarnadu Village in Mananthavady Taluk. The petitioner filed O.S.No.19/2002 against the State of Kerala, the Divisional Forest Officer and the Forest Range officer having jurisdiction, for an injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the said property. The suit was decreed by Ext.P2 judgment. That judgment has become final. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed an appeal challenging the certificate of purchase, before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kannur, along with a petition to condone delay of 28 years in filing the same. The Appellate Authority condoned the delay, but returned the appeal holding that the address of the respondent is not correct, w.p.c.2517/06 - :
2. :- directing the appellant to re-submit that same with the present address of the respondent and with L.T.R. without fixing any time limit for the same. Ext.P6 is the order in the petition to condone delay and Ext.P7 is the order returning the appeal for curing the defect. The petitioner is challenging both seeking the following reliefs: "i) Issue a Writ or Certiorari or such other appropriate Writ order or direction calling for the originals of Exts.P6 and P7 order of the Appellate Authority (LR) Kannur in A.A.No.108/2003 dated 15.6.2005 and 6.7.2005 respectively and quash the same in the interest of justice; ii) Issue a Writ of mandamus or such other appropriate Writ Order or direction directing the Appellate Authority (LR) Kannur to reconsider Ext.P4 application of the respondent in I.A.No. 299/2003 in A.A.No.108/2003 on merits and pass a considered order in view of the inordinate delay of 28 years and the opposition thereto." 2. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in this writ petition. Both sides were heard.
3. Ext.P4 is the petition to condone delay. The same reads as follows; "This petition is submitted under Sub section 2 of Section 102 of KLR Act with the appeal petition No..../03 for condonation of delay." I am the District Collector, Wayanad and the appellant in the above case. An appeal has been filed before this Court against the order dated 29.3.75 in SMC30675 issued by the Land Tribunal Mananthavady. The order was passed as early on 29.3.75. The Dvl. Forest officer, North Wayanad vide letter No.L.5134/98 dated 1.9.2003 has requested to cancel the certificate of Purchase issued for an extent of 3.50 acres in Sy.No.677/1 of Thondernadu Village since there is some irregularities noticed in the issuance of Pattayam in this case and hence appeal for the cancellation the above pattayam could not be w.p.c.2517/06 - :
3. :- filed within the time. There is some delay in filing the appeal. I may state that there was no willful delay or default on my part in this regard. In the larger public interest and also to safeguard the interest of Govt. it is just and necessary to condone the delay in filling the appeal. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay in fling the appeal under Sub section 2 of section 102 of KLR Act and the same may be taken on to file and dispose of on merit. Ext.P6 is the order of the Appellate Authority condoning the delay. The same reads as follows: "Heard the counsels for the Appellant and Respondent. Perused the document produced. Reasons stated for the delay is seen convincing. Hence delay is condoned." It does not require any hair-splitting arguments to conclude that neither Ext.P4 petition to condone delay nor Ext.P6 order reveals any sufficient reasons for condoning the long delay of 28 years. It is not as if the respondents were not aware of the certificate of purchase issued to the petitioner. In fact, there was a litigation between the petitioner and the 1st respondent in respect of the very same property in which, the petitioner was claiming title under Ext.P1 certificate of purchase. That being so, I am of opinion that the respondents have not explained with any amount of satisfaction, the long delay of 28 years in filing the appeal. Therefore, Ext.P6 order condoning the delay is unsustainable. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P6 order.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that w.p.c.2517/06 - :
4. :- although the 2nd respondent was permitted to re-present the appeal with the correct address of the respondent, the 2nd respondent has not chosen to re-present the appeal even now. The learned Government Pleader could not dispute the said statement. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge