IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 23 of 2011(R) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36906/2004 Dated 30/11/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------- K.R. JAYARAM KUMAR, S/O. LATE K.R. RAMA GUPTAN, KULAPPADAM ESTATES, KUMARAMPUTHUR.P.O, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. CHALIYAPARAMBIL KUMARAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, KUMARAMPUTHUR.P.O, MANNARKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS) THRISSUR. 3. MUTHIYALAT MOOPPIL NAIR (DIED), KOTTAPPURAM.P.O, KARIMPUZHA VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY MUPLI SITHANAM AGENT B.A GANGANDHARA MENON, NAKKUTHADATHIL PATHAPURAYIL P.O. VILAYUR,VIA PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ R.P.No.23 of 2011 in W.P.(C).No.36906 Of 2004 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This Court disposed of W.P.(C).No.36906 of 2004 by judgment dated 30.11.2010. In the writ petition, the petitioner, who is the applicant in O.A.No.1175 of 1973 on the file of the Land Tribunal No.III, Mannarghat, sought to quash Ext.P6 order passed by the appellate authority (Land Reforms). The review petitioner is the second respondent in the writ petition. He filed an appeal seeking to set aside the order passed by he Land Tribunal in O.A.No.1175 of 1973. The appeal filed as A.A.No.25 of 2003 is supported by a petition to condone the delay. The appellant sought to condone the delay of 28 years in filing the appeal. The appellate authority allowed the petition for condonation of delay. Ext.P6 in the writ petition is the order passed by the appellate authority. The petitioner in the writ petition opposed the delay condonation petition stating that the second respondent became major in the year 1976, that the petition is seen filed 27 years after attaining majority that there is no bonafides in filing an application for condonation of such ::2:: R.P.No.23 Of 2011 inordinate delay and therefore prayed for dismissal of the application. 2. This Court examined the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay namely, I.A.No.119 of 2003. Finding that there is no explanation at all and no materials are produced in support of the averment that the belated filing of the petition was due to the reasons stated in the affidavit, this Court found that Ext.P6 order passed by the appellate authority is wrong and unsustainable in law and therefore Ext.P6 order was set aside. 3. The second respondent in the writ petition now filed the present review petition. The contentions raised in the review petition are contentions touching the merit of the appeal preferred before the appellate authority. The learned senior counsel submitted that the order passed by the Land Tribunal in the O.A.1175 of 1973 suffers from legal infirmity, that the identification of the property is incorrect and therefore requested this Court to review the judgment. As I said earlier, the contentions now raised are contentions which are touching the ::3:: R.P.No.23 Of 2011 merits of the appeal. The question as to whether the delay of 28 years is liable to be condoned or not is considered by this Court on merit and this Court held that there was no justification for the appellate authority to place reliance on the bald averments in the affidavit not supported by any evidence. In the result, I find that the review petition is without any merit and accordingly, dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-