IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 155 of 2011(C) ------------------------------- LAR.109/2007 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------------- RUBBEENA, D/O.MAMMED KUTTY, BZNODE VEEDU, NADUVANNOOR P.O. NADUVANNOOR VILLAGE, KOYILANDY TALUK KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN SRI.P.T.GIRIJAN SMT.USHA NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (LA) KOYILANDY, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS DIVISION, KOZHIKKODE. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Application No.311 of 2011 & L. A. A. No.155 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This is an application seeking condonation of the delay of 678 days caused in the matter of instituting the appeal. Ordinarily, we would have condoned the delay imposing proper terms on the appellant/petitioner. But it is very fairly brought to our notice by Sri.M.S.Narayanan, the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned common judgment was appealed against by various other claimants and at that time the present appellant had not challenged the same. The appeals filed by the other claimants were allowed by way of remand and the Reference Court has granted enhancement under the revised judgments. The revised judgments have become final as appeals preferred L. A. A. No.155 of 2011 -2- against them have been dismissed by this Court. Entertaining this appeal (the learned counsel fairly points out) will amount to allowing the appellant to get away from the effect of the revised judgment and also the judgment of this Court confirming the revised judgment under which the benefits have not been given to the appellant. In view of the facts stated by Sri.Narayanan, we find no way to entertain this appeal. This appeal will stand rejected. Refund the court fee already remitted on the appeal memorandum to the counsel for the appellant. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. BHAVADASAN JUDGE kns/-