IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33663 of 2004(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DHARMA DAIVOM DEVASOM TRUST CHARITABLE SANGHOM, PANNOOR P.O., KARIMANNOOR, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT & SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SMT.LINDA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, CIVIL LINES, PAINAVU, IDUKKI. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DO.DO. 4. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 5. AMMINI, NOW RESIDING AT KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, PANNOOR P.O., KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKEL FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R5 SRI.S.K.MOHAMED SAJEER FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT ;REGISTER SIGNED BY SENIOR DEVAN-PESHKAR EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF; EXTRACT OF BASIC TAX REGISTER PREPARED AND SIGNED BY TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA EXT.P3 TRUE EXTRACT OF BSIC TAX REGISTER KEPT IN VILLAGE OFFICE, KARIMANNOOR. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 2.12.1975. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 16.2.1976 BY THE REVENUE INSPECTOR. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF REVENUE INSPECTOR DATED 16.2.1976 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE PUBLISHED IN VILLAGE OFFICE ON 2.12.1979 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE PUBLISHED IN PANCHAYAT OFFICEr EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE PUBLISHED IN TALUK OFFICE ON 2.2.1976 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT ON REGISTRY ON 28.2.1976 EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF PATTA GRANTED BY SPL. TAHSILDAR ON17.3.1976 EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX REGISTER KEPT AFTER RE-SURVEY EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THANDAPPER REGISTER DATED NIL. EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THANDAPPER REGISTER DATED 6.10.1999 EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THANDAPPER REGISTER ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, KARIMANNOOR IN THE NAME OF AMMINI EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED EXECUTED BY KUNJAPPAN PILLAI. EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF RATION CARD ISSUED BY TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, THODUPUZHA. EXT.P18 TRUE COPY OF VOTERS LIST OF 1999 IN WARD NO. IV OF THODUPUZHA ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY. EXT.P19 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL BEFORE THE RDO, IDUKKI ON 26.2.2003 EXT.P20 TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION OF SANGHOM ON 9.10.2002 EXT.P21 TRUE COPY OF ;REMINDER LETTER DATED 3.9.2004 EXT.P22 TRUE COPY OF DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 7.10.2004 BY RDO, IDUKKI. EXT.P23 TRUE COPY OF REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI MALAYALAM DAILY DATED 4.8.2003 EXT.P24 TRUE COPY OF REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI MALAYALAM DAILY DATED 9.11.2002 5TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a) PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT NO. 838/83 DATED 28.3.1983 TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 33663 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Ext.P22 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer is under challenge in this WPC. According to the petitioner, fifth respondent's late husband's father was in management of the temple which is now controlled by the petitioner-trust. On the death of fifth respondent's husband's father, the fifth respondent's husband became the care-taker of the property of the temple and he got temple property assigned in his favour in 1976. The case of the petitioner is that assignment is through fraudulent means and though with a delay they have challenged the same in appeal filed under Rule 22 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules before the RDO. The case of the fifth respondent is that assignment was after observing all the procedures prescribed under the Rules and the appeal is hopelessly time barred in as much as assignment was more than 26 years prior to the date of filing of the appeal. Both the petitioner and fifth respondent have raised rival contentions. I do not think this Court should consider the case on 2 merits because a statutory appeal, if entertained, has to be considered by the RDO. In view of inordinate delay in filing the appeal, the RDO has to necessarily consider justification for condonation of delay and in this regard he has to hear parties and then pass orders. A decision on merits arises only when the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The RDO without appreciating the scope of his responsibility under Rule 22 dismissed the appeal stating that the matter has to be settled in civil suit. This order issued vide Ext.P22 is not tenable because delayed appeal has also to be considered by him as an appeal on merit, if delay is condoned. In the circumstances, WPC is disposed of vacating Ext.P22 with direction to the RDO to give opportunity to the petitioner to file detailed statement justifying the delay, hear petitioner and fifth respondent and pass orders on the delay condonation petition and if delay is condoned to entertain the appeal, hear the parties and decide the matter on merits. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3