IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 652 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- LAR NO.609/1998 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DIST.COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ------------------------------------------ PATHROSE PAILY, PUTHENKUDY, VENGOOR, EAST VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU. BY ADV. SRI.V.J.JOSEPH THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts L.A.A.NO.652/2010 ORDER ON I.A.NO.2152/2010 IN L.A.A.NO.652/2010 DISMISSED 08/06/2011 SD/- HARUN-UL- RASHID, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- L.A.A.NO.652 OF 2010 & C.M.APPL. NO. 1003 OF 2010 IN ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011 JUDGMENT C.M.Appl.No.1003/2010 is an application to condone the delay of 2748 days in filing the appeal. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader. The reasons for the inordinate delay are explained in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay. The judgment and decree were pronounced on 19/3/2002. The main grievance of the appellant is that the reference court illegally granted the benefits under Section 23(1A) to which the claimant is not entitled. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit that the grant of benefits under Section 23(1A) was noticed only when the judgment and decree was amended. It is not explained as to why the grant of benefit under Section 23(1A) was noticed only in 2006. The decree and judgment were delivered in 2002. Application for -2- LAA.652/2010 & C.M.APPL.No.1003/10 certified copy of the judgment and decree was filed only on 28/9/2006, i.e. after a period of more than four years. Though the decree and judgment were obtained on 28/9/2006, the appeal was filed in April, 2010, i.e. after a period of more than 3 1/2 years. 3. From the averments in the affidavit, it is seen that the copies of decree and judgment were delivered on 10/1/2007 and the District Collector on 2/3/2007 accorded sanction for filing appeal. The file was forwarded to the Office of the Advocate General for filing appeal in March, 2007, but the appeal was filed on 9th April, 2010, i.e. after a period of three years. There is no justification for keeping the case file for a period of three years in the Advocate General's Office for the purpose of filing the appeal. In normal circumstances, appeal can be filed within a week from the date of receipt of records from the District Collector. There is no justification for the inordinate delay of more than three years occasioned in the Advocate General's Office. Altogether the non- explained delay is for a period of 2748 days. There is laches and deliberate inaction on the part of the Government Officials and the -3- LAA.652/2010 & C.M.APPL.No.1003/10 Office of the Advocate General in taking up the matter within the prescribed time for filing the appeal, at least within a reasonable period, after expiration of the time for filing the appeal. The delay is not at all explained. Hence, the petition to condone the delay of 2748 days in filing the appeal is dismissed. Consequently the appeal is dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge. kcv.