IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 1110 of 2005 ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN RP 13 2002 IN AA.21/2002 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR .................... O.A.NO.1359/90 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE ..... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT:RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KATHEESABI, W/O. KALAYATTU MAMU, DAIVAMULLA PARAMBU, P.O. ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MRI.NIRMAL.S. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MAPPILA VEETTIL AYSABI, DAIVAMULLA PARAMBA, M.P. HOUSE PUNNADATH PARAMBA, P.O. ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. NAZAR, M.P. HOUSE, PUNNADATH PARAMBA, ...DO..... 3. SAJUDEEN, M.P. HOUSE, PUNNADATH PARAMBA, ...DO..... R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.1110 OF 2005 -------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February 2010 ORDER Revision is directed against the order dated 03/03/2005 passed in R.P No.13/2002 in A.A No.21/2002 by the Appellate Authority (L.R), Kannur. Revision petitioner is the appellant in the above appeal which was filed challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.A No.1359/1990. The respondent who claimed to be a karaima holder filed the above O.A for purchase of his karaima holding having an extent of 1.25 cents with the appurtenant 5 cents of land invoking the provisions of Section 2(23A) and 54 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. After enquiry and collecting a report from the Revenue Inspector, the Land Tribunal passed an order allowing the purchase of 3.094 cents of land, the karaima holding with the appurtenant land required for its beneficial enjoyment. That order was challenged by the revision petitioner preferring an appeal numbered as A.A No.21/2002 before the Appellate Authority (L.R), Kannur. That appeal was dismissed for default on 21/05/2002. The appellant moved a restoration petition on 17/12/2002 with a petition to condone delay. In the delay petition, it was stated that the counsel who had been engaged for prosecuting the appeal, a lady advocate, got married and left C.R.P No.1110 OF 2005 Page numbers the station and so much so, the appellant was not aware of the dismissal of the appeal for default. Notice of the restoration petition being given the respondent/the applicant in the O.A resisted that application contending that the cause shown for condoning the delay was meritless. The learned Appellate Authority after hearing both sides not being satisfied with the cause shown by the appellant dismissed the restoration petition. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in this revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner canvassing the cause shown before the Appellate Authority for condoning the delay in entertaining his restoration petition urged for granting an opportunity to have a disposal of the appeal on merits after setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority. No sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay and so much so, no interference with the order of the Appellate Authority is called for is the submission of the counsel for the respondents. Perusing the order impugned with reference to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I find, the Appellate Authority dismissed the application for condonation of delay since the cause canvassed was found not satisfactory and convincing. If at all there was any fault on the part of the advocate in informing the C.R.P No.1110 OF 2005 Page numbers counsel in time the revision petitioner could have at least filed an affidavit if not from the advocate at least by the clerk of that advocate that fact. He has filed an affidavit of his own stating such a cause cannot be given unmerited consideration. In exercise of revision, it may not be proper for this court to sit in judgment over the conclusion formed by the statutory authority, Appellate Authority, when the revisional power is hedged by the restrictions imposed under Section 103 of Land Reforms Act. The above Section of the Land Reforms Act mandates that interference with an order passed by the authority is permissible under revision only when the authority has decided erroneously or not considered any question of law. In the present case, no question of law is involved and the order challenged had been passed by the authority in the exercise of its discretionary power. There is nothing to indicate that there is any error in the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv