IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 352 of 2005() --------------------- {IN IA NO.36/99 IN A.A.NO.36/99 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS), TRIVANDRUM IN O.A.NO.209/72 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MUKHATHALA} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER-APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BABU OONNOONNI, GOPALAPURATHU KIZHAKKETHIL, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.HARISH R. MENON RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT/NON-PARTY: ----------------------------------- 1. S.SAMUEL, GOPALAPURATHU KIZHAKKETHIL, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.REKHA C. NAIR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- C.M.Appln.No.341 of 2005 & C.R.P.No.352 of 2005 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18 th day of February, 2010 O R D E R The revision is directed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority (LR), Thiruvananthapuram dismissing the petition moved by the appellant to condone the delay in preferring an appeal against the order passed by the Land Tribunal in O.A.No.209/72. The Land Tribunal had passed an order in O.A.No.209/72 on 29.9.1973 for issuing a purchase certificate to the 1st respondent recognising his status as a kudikidappukaran. Petitioner and his brother were the respondents in the above OA. Kudikidappu was claimed over the land which was owned by the present revision petitioner. Long after the passing of the order by the Land Tribunal an appeal was preferred i.e. nearly 18 years later, with a petition to condone the delay, contending that the petitioner was not given notice of the proceedings of the Land C.R.P.No.352 of 2005 :: 2 :: Tribunal and that he was then outside the country. The Appellate Authority not being satisfied with the cause shown for condoning the delay dismissed the application with the result that the appeal was also rejected. The revision petition is filed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority with a petition to condone the delay of 1247 days. 2. In the affidavit sworn to in support of the petition to condone the delay, it is stated by the petitioner that he had applied for getting a certified copy of the order dated 29.6.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority on 5.7.2001, but no copy of the order was issued on his application, and even now he is not aware of the fate of that application. The present revision is filed on the basis of a certified copy applied for and issued on 15.12.2004. 3. Perusing the affidavit and the cause shown for condoning the inordinate delay of 1247, I find, it cannot be accepted on its face value. Petitioner, if at all he had filed any C.R.P.No.352 of 2005 :: 3 :: application for getting copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority has not pursued that application. The revision preferred with a certified copy obtained on a later point of time, seeking condonation of delay, advancing a case that he had applied for a copy three years before, but unaware of the fate of that application hardly merits any consideration. The petitioner has not shown justifiable cause for the delay in filing the revision and that being so, the petition for condonation of delay (C.M.Appln.No.341 of 2005) is liable to be dismissed. I do so. In view of the dismissal of C.M.Appln.No.341 of 2005, revision is also dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//