IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2088 of 2009 --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.9688/09 DATED 01/06/09) APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------- K.V.JAYAN,AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.K.VIJAYAN,KAITHAVALAPPIL, NAYARAMBALAM,KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. STAE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,TRIVANDRUM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. TASHILDR (RR),KOCHI TALUK. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE 6. M.V.JOSE, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM. R1 TO R5 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT.K. MEERA. R6 BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R. SHENOY. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2088 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Aggrieved by the revenue sale conducted by the Departmental authorities the appellant/petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The main grievance was as to the alleged illegalities by the Departmental authorities in conducting sale in favour of respondent No.6. It is to be noted that the proposed sale was challenged before respondent No.3 under Section 53 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and when the authority declined to interfere, the appellant approached this Court in WP(C) No.37303 of 2007 which was disposed of directing the revisional authority to consider the petition filed by the petitioner which had initially rejected the same. After remand when the revisional authority took up the case noticing the fact that there was an inordinate delay of 476 days in invoking the revisional jurisdiction, the revisional authority declined to interfere with the sale proceedings and it is WA No.2088 of 2009 -:2:- confirmed by Government. It is mainly contended before us that the authorities and the learned Single Judge should have considered the delay aspect sympathetically and also ought to have been looked into the merits of the case before taking the decision. 3. In our view, while approaching a competent authority or court seeking some relief, the person invoking such jurisdiction should be vigilant and that too the approach must be within reasonable time. In the present case, it is absolutely not justifiable to approach the revisional authority after an inordinate delay of 476 days. Except stating that only after the decision of this Court in the previous writ petition the appellant could approach the revisional authority as such liberty was given, no reasons are given for belated approach. It is to be noted that the writ petition came to be dismissed in the year 2007 and thereafter the present delay of 476 days has occurred. More over now as possession of the property in dispute has also been delivered to respondent No.6 on 26.09.08, there is nothing more to be considered. WA No.2088 of 2009 -:3:- We do not find any acceptable explanation to condone this delay and as such find that both the revisional authorities and the learned Single Judge were justified in declining relief to the appellant and dismissing the petition only on the ground of delay and laches without entering into the merits of the case. We find no merit in the appeal. The Appeal stands rejected. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb