IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 CRP.No. 773 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/07/2006 IN IA.831/05 IN LAR.155/2003 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPLICANT/CLAIMANT: ------------------------------------------------------ U.V.KUNJAMBU, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O LATE KANNAN, BUS OWNER, RESIDING AT UDINOOR VEEDU IN PUDUKAI VILLAGE, P.O.PUDUKAI. BY MR.P.K.ASHOKAN,ADVOCATE SMT.DHANYA P. ASHOKAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS/ REFERRING OFFICER & RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KASARAGOD. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BRIDGES & ROADS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. BY MR.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM,SC,RBDCK FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.T.K.VIPINDAS FOR R1 & 3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.773 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of March, 2009 O R D E R The claimant of the LAR No. 155 of 2003 is the revision petitioner challenging the order in I.A. No. 830 of 2005. The reference application was posted on 22.11.2003 and on that date the claimant was absent, despite notice was served on him. Thereafter it was adjourned to 11.2.2004. On that date also the claimant was absent. The land acquisition reference was disposed of by order dated 11.2.2004. Reference was closed finding that the claimant was unrepresented. The court below held that the claimant received the notice of reference on 5.11.2008 directing him to appear before the court on 22.11.2003. But he failed to appear before the court. The court below found that there is neither sufficient nor adequate explanation for the delay in filing the petition under order IX Rule 7 Code of Civil Procedure. The circumstances leading to the delay in filing the application is not satisfactorily explained. At the same C.R.P.No.773 of 2006 -2- time, it is a fact that the reference application was not decided on merits. I think an opportunity shall be given to the claimant to substantiate his case for additional compensation and the petition for condonation of delay can be allowed conditionally on payment of an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as cost to the respondents. I.A. Nos. 830 of 2005 and 831 of 2005 are allowed on condition that the claimant/ petitioner shall pay Rs.3,000/- as cost, shall be paid on or before 8.4.2009. If the amount is not paid as directed, the petition for condonation of delay shall stand dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE rhs