IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 CRP.No. 2007 of 2002() ---------------------- AA.24/1995 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR SMP.38/1979 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/3RD PARTY ---------------------------------------- V.RAJAN, S/O. KORAN OF KEEZHALLUR AMSOM AND DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT "GOKUL", MANDAPAM ROAD, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 9 AND 10 & 19/RES.2,3 & 12 & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHALATH CHERIYAKADAVAN DEVAKI D/O. KUNDAN, KEEZHALLUR AMSOM, ELAMPARA DESOM, P.O.EDAYANNUR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DIST. 2. CHALATH CHERIYAKADAVAN ROHINI, DO. DO. 3. VARAKKOTH KALLIYADAN KANNAN NAMBIAR, KEEZHALLUR AMSOM, KOTHERI DESOM, P.O.MATTANNUR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPD.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.OF KERALA, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENTS: 5.T.NARAYAN,S/O.DEVAKI,ARMYMAN,KEEZHALLUR AMSOM, KOTHARI DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DIST. 6.SATHYAN,S/O.DEVAKI, ARMYMAN, KEEZHALLUR AMSOM, KOTHARI DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DIST. 7.HARIDASAN,S/O.DEVAKI, ARMYMAN, KEEZHALLUR AMSOM, KOTHARI DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DIST. CRP.2007/02 8.SARALA,D/O.DEVAKI,ARMYMAN, KEEZHALLUR AMSOM, KOTHARI DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DIST. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENTS ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.9.2007 IN I.A.NO.3133/2006 IN CRP.NO.2007/2002 ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE FOR R2 & 6 SRI.M.K.SUMOD FOR R2 SRI.M.K.SUMOD FOR R5, 7 & 8 SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FOR R5, 7 & 8 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.2007 OF 2002 (C) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009 O R D E R The revision is directed against the judgment dated 29.9.2001 in A.A.No.24 of 1995 passed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kannur. Petitioner challenged the order of the Land Tribunal No.1, Kuthuparamba in S.M.P.No.38 of 1979 dated 29.10.1979 with a petition to condone the delay of about 15 years. Petitioner was not a party to the SM proceedings on the file of the Land Tribunal. The learned Appellate Authority, not being satisfied with the cause shown for condoning the delay, dismissed the appeal as time barred. Propriety and correctness of the judgment so rendered by the Appellate Authority is challenged in the revision. 2. The revision was filed with a petition to condone the delay of 250 days. Delay was condoned after giving notice to CRP.2007/2002 2 the respondents, and its admissibility was considered. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the grounds canvassed explaining the delay in challenging the appeal have not been adverted to or considered by the Appellate Authority. A suit filed by the assignees of the land covered by the proceedings, initially, for a decree of injunction, but, later amended for recovery of possession against the revision petitioner was dismissed, according to the counsel, finding that the petitioner has title over the property. A Second Appeal from that suit is still pending before this Court. Petitioner came to know of the proceedings and assignment of the land only when the assignees moved for a correction of the order of the Land Tribunal during the pendency of the suit, is the submission of the counsel. I am not impressed by the submissions made by the counsel. Admittedly, the petitioner claimed title over the property by virtue of a registered document in the year 1990, that is, long after the assignment of the land in favour of the respondents in SMP.No.38 of 1979 by order dated 29.10.1979. The predecessor of the assignees, namely, Kundan had leasehold right over the land is not CRP.2007/2002 3 disputed. The case of the revision petitioner is that the land covered by the assignment had been gifted by Kundan in favour of his sons, and so much so, the daughters of Kundan, the respondents had no right and they were incompetent to claim assignment of the land on the advent of the Land Reforms Act. The land vested with the Government and an assignment had been made much later in the suo motu proceedings initiated by the competent authority. Assignment was granted in favour of the two daughters of Kundan, the respondents/tenants, who had leasehold right over the property, by the competent authority. There is no impropriety or illegality in the judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority repelling the challenge against the order of assignment after a long lapse of 15 years. There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.2007 OF 2002 © ----------------------------------- O R D E R 29th day of September, 2009