IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933 LA.App..No. 1045 of 2010 -------------------------- LAR.51/1994 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT. ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY ADVOCATE GENERAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.GOPINATHAN RESPONDENT/CLAIMANTS. ------------------------------- 1. MADHAVAN HARIDAS, PALACKKAL KANDATHIL, MEKATHIL, KAPPIL MOKKU, KRISHNAPURAM. PIN-690 533. 2. N.HARIDASAN,PALACKKAL KANDATHIL, MEKATHIL, KAPPIL MOKKU, KRISHNAPURAM. PIN-690 533 3. N.PRASANTHAN, PALACKKAL KANDATHIL, MEKATHIL, KAPPIL MOKKU, KRISHNAPURAM. PIN-690 533. BY THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA ,J. ------------------------- C.M.Appli. No.1573 of 2010 & L.A.A No. 1045 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th September, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT This petition is filed to condone delay of 2827 days in filing this appeal. This appeal is filed against an order allowing enhanced compensation to the claimants/respondents, under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. 2. The judgment was passed on 26.6.2002 about 9 years back. As per the affidavit filed along with this petition, an application was filed for getting certified copy of the judgment and decree on 29.6.2002 as A. No.A825/29/02 but copy was received only on 27.9.2003. i.e. after one year. There is only a bare averment, but no documents are produced to substantiate the truth of such averments. Ordinarily, there will not be such inordinate delay in giving certified copies. Therefore, I am not satisfied of the averments relating to delay in issuing certified copies. C.M.Appli. No.1573 of 2010 & L.A.A No. 1045 of 2010 2 3. This must be the reason why another Bench of this Court had directed the State to file an additional affidavit. The order was passed as early as on 1.3.2011 but no additional affidavit is filed so far, despite lapse of 6 months. 4. It is also averred in the affidavit that due to an inadvertent omission only the copy of the judgment was forwarded to the Additional Government Pleader for further proceedings. Concerned Officers requested to obtain copy of decree and judgment and subsequently, the Government Pleader applied for the copy of the decree and judgment but it was after six years, on 18.8.2009. No reason is stated why six years time is taken for making an application again for getting certified copy. 5. It is further stated that certified copy was ready on 18.9.2009 and it was collected on 29.9.2009. Still the appeal was filed only after about one year on 26.7.2010. For this delay also there is no satisfactory explanation. It is true that as pointed out by learned Government Pleader, in C.M.Appli. No.1573 of 2010 & L.A.A No. 1045 of 2010 3 the light of the dictum laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji [AIR 1987 SC 1353] and in Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala Vs. K.V.Aisumma [ 1996 (1) SCC 634], the court need not insist upon the State to explain every days delay and there should be a justice oriented approach in matters like this. 6. Justice does not mean justice to the party who approaches the court alone. Justice should be done equally to both sides of a litigation. If this petition is allowed, after nine years of passing of the judgment by condoning delay of more than 2800 days, the difficulties and hardships which may be caused to the opposite side also have to be kept in mind, while appreciating the contentions of the petitioner. Even though every day's delay need not be explained there must be some reasonable and acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay of about nine years in filing the appeal. 7. It is pointed out by learned Government Pleader that no counter was filed in this petition. But the silence on the part of the respondents in engaging a lawyer and filing a counter opposing this petition alone cannot be made a C.M.Appli. No.1573 of 2010 & L.A.A No. 1045 of 2010 4 ground to accept whatever is stated in the affidavit filed by petitioner. The non-filing of a counter by itself may not be sufficient to allow a petition. There is absolutely no plausible explanation in the affidavit for the inordinate delay. Hence this petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE) ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge C.M.Appli. No.1573 of 2010 & L.A.A No. 1045 of 2010 5 C.M.Appli. No.1573 of 2010 & L.A.A No. 1045 of 2010 6