IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 AFA.No. 32 of 1994() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN LAA.414/1993 Dated 19/10/1993 LAR.474/1988 of III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT -------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. HILDA, W/O.FRANCIS XAVIER, METHASSERY, PONNANRIMANGALAM KARA MULAVUKAD VILLAGE. 2. COCHIN EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.M.A.HAKEEN SHAH FOR THIS APPEAL FROM FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON T HE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------- A.F.A.No.32 of 1994 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5th February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in L.A.A.No.414 of 1993. That was an appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in L.A.R.No.474 of 1988, on the file of III Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam. Dissatisfied by the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, claimants sought a reference claiming enhancement. The reference court granted enhancement, against which the said appeal is preferred. However, the appeal was not filed in time and it was highly belated. A petition for condonation of delay of 533 days was also filed along with the appeal. The delay petition was supported by an affidavit. The learned Sub Judge, after considering the averments made in the affidavit, not satisfied with the reasons offered for the delay, AFA.32/1994 2 dismissed the delay petition. Accordingly, the appeal was also dismissed. The present appeal is filed against the said judgment. 2. There is no question of law much less any question of fact in this appeal. The condonation of delay is a discretion to be exercised by the Court, after considering the averments made in the affidavit, and also considering the materials placed seeking to condone the delay. True, such orders has to be passed objectively. Incidentally, it is pointed out that even the present appeal filed was also not within the time and the appeal itself was filed with a delay of 124 days. Atleast, when an appeal is preferred against an order refusing to condone the delay in filing the first appeal, State would have been more vigilant in filing the appeal. However, taking a lenient view of the matter, the delay in filing the present appeal was condoned. We are referring this only for the limited purpose of stating that at least in the matter of preferring appeal by the State, it should be more diligent and file the appeal within the time or try to explain the delay in a cogent and convincing manner, which will inspire AFA.32/1994 3 confidence in the mind of the court that the delay occurred was not deliberate or wilful and was due to reasons beyond the control of the appellant. Even taking the view that in an appeal preferred by the State, a lenient view should be taken, as public money is involved, the period of limitation fixed is the same for the State also. Thus the legislature did not intend to treat the State separately. However, we are also conscious of the decision of the Apex Court that in the matter of condonation of delay, a pedantic approach should be avoided, but however liberal the view may be, it cannot be viewed as if no period of limitation is prescribed. 3. We have carefully gone through the judgment. The learned Single Judge has considered every sentence in the affidavit with meticulous care. The judgment was pronounced by the land acquisition court on 31.5.1990. But it was only after a year and four months that an application itself was made for certified copy. The copy was ready on April, 1992 and it was received on that month itself, though there was a few days delay AFA.32/1994 4 in receiving the copy. After the matter was placed before the Advocate General in June, 1992, the appeal was filed only on 16.9.1992 and the usual reason stated was due to heave work load in the office of the Advocate General. The learned Single Judge, in such circumstances, viewed that a case has not been made out for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The case itself arise out of the land acquisition proceedings of the year 1988 and 20 years have elapsed thereafter. The extent of land involved is only 2.43 Ares of land and the enhancement granted is only Rs.10,000/= per Are. Therefore, it is not at all possible to say that this is a case where a different view could have been taken in the matter. Though that being the position, we would have still allowed this appeal, since against the common judgment, there were other matters admitted and pending consideration before this Court. But, at this distance of time, and in view of the decision rendered in a connected case on merits, we find, it will not be worth while to allow this appeal for a re-consideration. The counsel appearing AFA.32/1994 5 for the respondent has made available before us a copy of the judgment in the connected matter, from which it is seen that the land value fixed in the connected appeal was Rs.7000/= per cent, i.e., nearly Rs.17,400/- per Are. What has been awarded in this case is Rs.21,000/= per Are and the land involved is only 2.43 Ares. Thus, the amount involved in this case is less than Rs.10,000/=. In such circumstances, we agree with the view expressed by the learned Single judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. nj.