IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 LA.App..No. 388 of 2011() ------------------------- LAR.199/1994 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM ............................ APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. S. GOPINATHAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------------------------- 1. SOMASUNDARAN PILLAI, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KUZHIVILA PADINJATTATHIL, KADAPPAMURI, MYNAGAPPILLY. 2. DEVAKI AMMA, W/O.SOMASUNDARAN PILLAI, KUZHIVILA PADINJATTATHIL, KADAPPAMURI, MYNAGAPPILLY. ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P FOR R1 & R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J -------------------------- C.M.A.897 OF 2011 in L.A.A.No.388 OF 2011 and L.A.A.No.388 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 29th July, 2011 J U D G M E N T This petition is filed to condone delay of 1354 days in filing the appeal. 2. According to State/petitioner, delay occurred for completing the procedural formalities. This petition is strongly opposed. On hearing both sides and on going through affidavit and counter affidavit, it is clear that it took more than two years even for filing an application for copy of decree. Judgment was pronounced as early as on 22.9.2003 but, Government Pleader applied for copy of decree only on 22.12.2005 and there was a delay of 820 days in applying for a copy of the decree. 3. It is also clear from the affidavits that even after getting copy of the decree, file was kept in the office for more than 534 days. Thereafter, with a delay of 1354 days, an appeal was filed. Registry noted some defects but the appeal was represented only LA.A. No.388/11 2 with a delay of 534 days. Though representation delay was condoned, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that interest of justice will be secured, if the inordinate delay is condoned which was purely due to negligence on the part of the State at every stage. If delay is condoned, it will encourage the gross negligence. Delay has also not been satisfactorily explained, except by saying that there was delay in applying for the copy and for moving the file from authority to authority. Admittedly, the property involved is only one Are. In the result, 1. This petition is dismissed. 2. Since the petition for condonation of delay is dismissed, this appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou. // True copy // P.A. to Judge.