IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8191 of 2011(Y) ------------------------- AA.75/2000 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJKUMAR.N., S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, "SREESAILAM", MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN NITHA.N.S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KALARIKKAL DEVASWOM, PUDUPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 011. 2. M.M.NARAYANA PANICKER, MAZHUVANCHERIL, PAYYAPPADY P.O., PUTHUPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 011. 3. M.N.RAVEENDRA PANICKER, KRISHNAVILASOM, MAZHUVANCHERIL, PUTHUPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 011. 4. SUSEELA DEVI, KALARICKAL MADOM, PUTHUPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 011. 5. KRISHNAN POTTY, KALARICKAL MADOM, PUTHUPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 011. 6. NISHA, KALARICKAL MADOM, PUTHUPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 011. 7. THE MANAGER, VAZHAKULAM DEVASWOM, PUTHUPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 011. 8. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS) ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8191 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P9 order passed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Alappuzha in I.A Nos.17/2010 and 18/2010 in A.A No.75/2000, whereby the delay of nearly 5 years has been condoned and the matter has been decided to be proceeded on merits. 2. Mr. N.N.Sugunapalan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, absolutely no reasons have been stated so as to have the delay condoned and that, the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) has resulted in total miscarriage of justice and hence is challenged. 3. Going by the materials on record, this Court finds that the Appellate Authority has applied its mind as to the facts and circumstances and the explanation offered from the part of the petitioners in the I.A, to condone the delay in filing the Appeal, before arriving at a finding. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the course pursued by the Appellate Authority in condoning the delay, if at all the final verdict to be passed by the Appellate Authority goes against the petitioner. Anyhow, the actual question to be considered is not the 'extent of delay' but the 'explanation' offered. This has been made clear by the Apex Court in the decision reported in “N.Balakrishnan v M. Krishna Murthy” (1998(7) SCC 123). W.P.(C) No. 8191/2011 - 2 - 4. in the above circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and the issue is left open to the petitioner to agitate the same in the due course, if and when necessitated, subject to the final verdict to be passed by the Appellate Authority as aforesaid. It is made clear that the Appeal shall be finalised giving effective opportunity to both the sides to raise additional pleadings and further evidence in support of their claim. Writ Petition is disposed of. vdv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE