IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 11909 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOSE THOMAS,AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.THOMAS, PADINJARE VEETTIL,KANNAMKODE KARA, ADOOR.P.O,VILLAGE,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. K.SHAJ MR. SAJJU.S RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,IDUKKI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR,UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. MOHAN KUMAR,S/O.PRATHAPA CHANDRA VARMA, ARANYA VEEDU,KOCHU KADAVANTHARA DESOM, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM. 5. R.VIJAYAKUMAR,S/O.VASUDEVEN PILLAI, THACHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,PLAPUZHA MURI,HARIPPAD. 6. AJITH KUMAR,S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI,ASWATHY, VADAKKEKARA,ANAMPARAMBA THALAVADI VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK. 7. M/S SOUTHERN BUILDERS,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,PRIYA RAMESH,MIDHUNAM, NELLIMALA ROUND,MOOVATTUPUZHA. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.P. SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 11909 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 2nd June , 2011 JUDGMENT The land conservancy proceedings initiated against the petitioner and some others resulted in adverse orders, which in turn was subjected to challenge by filing Ext. P3 appeal by the petitioner. But, the appeal was rejected as per Ext.P4 order dated 27.09.2010 passed by the first respondent, observing that, the appeal could not be taken into file, for want of production of the original of the impugned order and also for the fact that the appeal was belated by 8 days. The grievance of the petitioner is that, no opportunity of hearing was ever given to the petitioner before passing Ext. P4, which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents as well. 3. Going by the available materials on record, it is seen that, Ext. P4 order has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner. Obviously, there is a finding in Ext. P4 that the appeal is belated by 8 days. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the idea and understanding of the appellate authority as to the bar stated as W.P. (C) No. 11909 of 2011 : 2 : attracted by the Law of Limitation is quite wrong and misconceived, for the reason that the order passed by the District Collector (impugned in the appeal) was actually served to the petitioner only much belatedly and as such, the period of limitation has to be computed with reference to the date of receipt of the impugned order, which aspect could not be highlighted by the petitioner before the first respondent, for the fact that he was never given an opportunity of hearing. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the first respondent. Accordingly, Ext. P4 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider Ext. P4 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, also enabling him to cure the defects, if any. The proceedings as above shall be finalized in accordance with law, passing appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits, including on the question of limitation. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd