IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.NO. 781 OF 2008() --------------------- {IN IA 928 & 927/2004 IN LAR.38/2003 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): CLAIMANT -------------------------------------- K. VICHITHRAN, S/O. KUNJU PILLAI, KIZHAKKE VEEDU, MAYYANADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SYSAN P.MANGUZHA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C.R.P.No.781 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the claimant in a land acquisition reference made to the Additional Sub Court, Kollam. The reference was closed for the reason of the absence of the claimant when it was posted for enquiry. The review petition moved by the petitioner with a petition to condone the delay of 82 days was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge, holding that no sufficient grounds had been made out for condoning the delay. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner for the claimant and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. No serious objection was raised by the Learned Government Pleader in setting aside the impugned order, primarily, as the delay canvassed for condonation was only 82 days. The court to which the reference is made has to answer such reference by passing an award. When a reference is closed by the court either by passing an award ex parte or dismissing it for default, if a review petition is C.R.P.No.781 of 2008 :: 2 :: filed by the party explaining the cause for his absence, it has to be examined and disposed of on its merits. The delay in present case was only 82 days. The court below dismissed the application for review for the reason that no evidence was let in before the court for condoning the delay. Petition to condone the delay and also the review are to be examined with reference to the facts involved in the case and also how far the interest of justice would be served better by disposal of the case on merits. 4. The claimant in the land acquisition proceeding, if not given an opportunity to agitate his claim for enhanced compensation, is likely to suffer severe irreparable injury. Having regard to the period of delay i.e., 82 days only, I find that if the delay is not condoned, justice alone will be the casualty. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the court below declining to condone the delay is set aside. The application for condonation and review shall stand allowed and the court C.R.P.No.781 of 2008 :: 3 :: below shall dispose the reference on its merits. However, claimant cannot take unmerited advantage for the delay. The claimant shall not be entitled to the interest on the enhanced market value, if any, allowed by the court below for the period from the closing of the reference till the date of this order, and also the cost of the proceedings. Subject to the above directions, the revision petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE SK/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.