IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36452 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.R.RADHAKRISHNAN KARTHA, S/O.GOPALAPANICKAR, AGED 49 YEARS, KESAVAMANDIRAM, PERUMBAVOOR KARA, PERUMBAVOOR (P.O), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH, SRI.S.JAMAL, SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR, SMT.M.K.SHIMI, SRI.SREEVALSAN.V. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 3. THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL, ERNAKULAM., P.O – 682 011. 4. SUB REGISTRAR OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR, P.O- 683 542. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 36452 of 2010 F ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 appellate order passed by the second respondent confirming Ext.P3 order. Although several contentions have been raised by the counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that Ext.P4 order was passed on 22-11-2008 and the writ petition is filed only on 06-12-2010. Therefore, there is an inordinate delay of more than two years in challenging Ext.P4. 2. However, counsel for the petitioner contended that since Ext.P4 was issued without notice to the petitioner, petitioner filed Ext.P5 review petition and that therefore the petitioner cannot be accused of being guilty of delay and laches. As far as Ext.P5 is concerned, first of all the Kerala Stamp Act does not confer any power of review on the second respondent and for that reason, the review petition filed was not maintainable. That apart, even the review petition was W.P.(C) No.36452/10 : 2 : filed only on 18-11-2010, which is after two years of the impugned order. Thus, not only that the review was not maintainable but is also highly belated. Therefore, the fact that the review petition has been filed cannot enable the petitioner to claim that the delay in challenging Ext.P4 should be condoned. 3. I am not inclined to interfere with the matter. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge