IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 CRP.No. 515 of 2001(A) ---------------------------------- AA.427/1997 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS), KANNUR SMC.136/1992 of LAND TRIBUNAL, BEYPORE .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S.V. JAMEELA, D/O.IMBICHIPATHUMABI, 3/242, 'NEST', AREECODU JUNCTION, P.O. NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM, SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH, RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUTTIBI, D/O.AHAMED KOYA, KUTTIKKATTUPARAMBA, P.O. NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. NEDIYAL KOVILAKATHU VALIYA THAMPURATTY, P.O.BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE. 3. STATE OF KERALA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW, R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 515 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order in I.A.119/96 and A.A.427/97. There was an original case as SMC 136/92 whereby the first respondent did succeed and now the aggrieved party namely the revision petitioner had moved the Appellate Authority with an appeal as provided under the Land Reforms Act with a petition to condone the delay of about 72 days. It is submitted that the present appellant was undergoing treatment with one Santha Balakrishnan and she was unable to met her counsel in time and that has occasioned in delay. 2. At the out set it has to be stated that the broad principles of natural justice demands that the matter has to be heard and disposed of CRP NO. 515 of 2001 -:2:- on merits unless there is gross negligence or grave mis-conduct. It is settled by a decision reported in Sreedhara Kurup v. Mickel (1968 KLT 599. 3. So far as the petitions to condone the delay are concerned the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the land mark judgment reported in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353) had given the guidelines to approach such a case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, “When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay.” The Court further cautioned that, CRP NO. 515 of 2001 -:3:- “It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” So the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that there must be a justice oriented approach in these types of matters but of-course if there is gross negligence or grave misconduct that also has to be taken into consideration. Here the appellant was not examined but her relative was examined. The Doctor has issued a certificate but not examined. But it is very clear that the appellant was earnest and interested in proceeding with the matter. There was no deliberate delay or gross negligence on her part. So the minor contradictions here and there cannot be taken as a ground to defeat the ends of justice and therefore I am convinced CRP NO. 515 of 2001 -:4:- that it is a case where an opportunity has to be given to the appellant to contest the case on merits. Therefore the petition to condone the delay is allowed and the appeal which has been dismissed on that ground is restored to file. 4. In the result the CRP is allowed and the order in the petition to condone the delay is set aside and it is allowed. The Appellate Authority is directed to restore the appeal to file and dispose of the matter after hearing all concerned in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority shall issue notice to the parties intimating the date of appearance. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [true copy] P.A. To Judge. CRP NO. 515 of 2001 -:5:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. No. 515 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R 6th January, 2011.