IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 556 of 2001() ------------------------------- ( AGAINST THE ORDER IN SM 410/76/TLY OF TALUK LAND BOARD, THALASSERY) REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------------------- 1. A.K. RUGMINI, W/O.VIJAYA KURUP, THARACHANDIYIL HOUSE, VALLIYAD.P.O., KEEZHOOR, KANNUR. 2. SATHI DEVI.A.K., W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, THARACHANDIYIL HOUSE, -DO- 3. SANTHA KUMARI.A.K., W/O. RAJAN, RESIDING DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. MADHAVAN.A.K., ANANTHOTH HOUSE, EDAKKANAM, KEEZHOOR.P.O., KANNUR. 2. KAMALAKSHI AMMA, W/O.KUHIRAMAN, SUJATHA NIVAS, CHAVASSERY.P.O., KANNUR. 3. PARUKUTTY, W/O.GOPINATHAN, XANADU,KEEZHOOR.P.O., KANNUR. 4. KARTHIYANI.A.K., SREENILAYAM, CHENNALODE, PAYAM.P.O., KANNUR. 5. JANAKI.A.K., W/O.KUTTIAPPA, THARACHANDIYIL HOUSE, VALLIYAD, KEZHOOR.P.O., KANNUR. 6. MOHANAN.A.K., ANANTHOTH HOUSE, EDKKANAM, KEEZHOOR.P.O., KANNUR. 7. NARAYANAN.A.K., THARACHANDIYIL HOUSE, VALLIYAD, KEEZHOOR.P.O.,KANNUR. 8. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, THALASSERY. 9. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ALEX R8 & R9 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.R.P.NO.556/2001 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.1207/2001 IN C.R.P.NO. 556/2001 DISMISSED 31/01/2011 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TREU COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 556 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Thalasserry dated 17.10.00 in S.M.No.410/76. The revision petitioners moved an application u/s 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for adjudicating their claim and the Taluk Land Board had dismissed the same on the ground of limitation. It is stated that there is an inordinate delay of 17 years and therefore the petitions are dismissed. It is also submitted that the delay condonation application has been dismissed without notice as well as the application filed along with the same. Whatever it may be, the parties are claiming right over immovable property which is a valid right. If they are able to establish their valid right over the property certainly it may not be correct to direct them to CRP NO. 556 of 2001 -:2:- surrender those lands. It is desirable that the right of a party is not denied on technical grounds. I do not find any gross negligence or grave misconduct in filing the application for establishing their right. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Taluk Land Board with a direction to consider the application on merits after permitting all concerned to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The Taluk Land Board shall issue notice to the parties fixing the date of appearance. Being a very old matter let the matter be disposed of within a period of four months from the date of first appearance of the parties. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- CRP NO. 556 of 2001 -:3:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = CRP NO. 556 of 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R 31st January, 2011.