IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 CRP.No. 646 of 2005 --------------------- AA.42/2003 of A.A.(LR),THRISSUR OA.1238/1976 of LAND TRIBUNAL, ANGADIPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ VIRIYUMMA, W/O. P.N. KUNHIMAMMU HAJI, PALEMPADIYAN NEDUMKALATHIL HOUSE, KOOTTILANGADI VILLAGE, PADINHATTUMURI POST, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT,2ND RESPONDENT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MATHODI NARAYANAN, S/O. CHOCHI, MATHODI HOUSE, KOOTTILANGADI VILLAGE PADINHATTUMURY POST, MALAPPURAM. 2. M. VASUDEVAN NAMBUDIRI, MADAPPILAPPALLI MANA, KOOTTILANOADI VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.T. PAI R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.SHYSON P. MANGUZHA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 646 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The applicant in OA No.1238/76, on the file of Land Tribunal, Angadippuram is the revision petitioner. Land Tribunal by order dated 30.10.76, allowed the application OA No.1238/76, filed by the revision petitioner. The 2nd respondent is the landlord. The 1st respondent filed appeal, AA No.42/03 before the appellate authority challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. The 1st respondent is not a party before the Land Tribunal. According to him, he is the tenant who is entitled to fixity of tenure, and that, the order of the Tribunal was passed behind his back. He got information about the passing of the order and issuance of certificate only very late and therefore he filed the appeal with a petition to condone the delay of 27 years and 7 days. The applicant/revision petitioner submitted before this court that the condonation of delay by the appellate authority is illegal and requires reconsideration. It is submitted that sufficient reasons for condonation of long delay has not been stated in the affidavit in support of the petition for condonation of delay and the details necessary in such affidavit have not been stated. For C.R.P No. 646 OF 2005 -:2:- want of pleadings and proof the petition to condone the delay is liable to be dismissed. 2. Counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that sufficient reasons are stated for condonation of delay. It is also submitted that the long delay was occasioned due to the fact that he had no knowledge about the passing of the order of the Land Tribunal and that the order was passed behind his back. Only late he came to know about the passing of the order by the Land Tribunal, only when he received notice in police protection case filed by the revision petitioner, as WP(C) No.35388/08. 3. According to the counsel for the revision petitioner, the delay of 27 years and 10 days was condoned without a proper application of mind and without stating reasons. 4. After condonation of delay, the matter was considered on merits and the appellate authority remanded the case to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. After hearing both sides I am of the view that, the application for condonation of delay requires reconsideration. The appellate authority shall consider the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the appeal after 27 years and 7 C.R.P No. 646 OF 2005 -:3:- days and decide whether sufficient reasons are made out by the applicant for condonation of delay. After taking a decision on the question of delay, the appellate authority shall consider the case on merits, if found that there is sufficient ground for condonation of delay. A decision shall be taken by the appellate authority within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above observation. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) ttb