IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 1918 of 2002() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/07/1996 IN IA. 4837 /1994 IN LAR.93/1991 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/CLAIMANT ------------------------------------- SMT.C.JAGADAMMA, RADHAVILASOM BUNGLOW, KILLIPPALAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENT: COUNTER PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.M.P. No. 4668 of 2002 & C.R.P. NO. 1918 OF 2002 --------------------- Dated this the 21stday of February, 2008 ORDER C.M.P. No. 4668 /02 This petition is filed to condone the delay of 2136 days in filing the revision. It is submitted that that the cases were entrusted to one Advocate, Sri. Appurajan, by the husband of the petitioner namely Thankappan. Due to illness he was laid up and he died in 1998. The Advocate did not properly prosecute the case. It is seen that an application for review was filed and it was also dismissed. Thereafter petitioner approached another advocate. So the delay is only on account of these unexpected factors and therefore wanted to condone the delay. 2. Learned Government Pleader has filed a very strong counter affidavit refuting the allegations and would contend that it is all against the facts and therefore the delay cannot be condoned. 3. There are many drawbacks. But the matter appears that the husband of the petitioner, who was in charge of the litigation, died and there was some misunderstanding between the lawyer and the client and hence the case has not been properly conducted. At the outset, it has to be stated that the land acquisition court has not applied its mind while passing the award, which is imperative as per the decisions of the Apex C.M.P. No. 4668/02 & C.R.P. NO. 1918/02 2 court. So taking into consideration all these aspects and in the interest of justice, I am inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. C.R.P. NO. 1918 OF 2002 This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Addl. Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, in IA 4837/94 in LAR 93/91. It is an application to review the judgment dated 9.9.94. Land acquisition reference was closed without going into the merits. The court held that there are no grounds or errors apparent on the face of the records to review the order and therefore declined to review the order. 2. It is not correct to say that there is no error on the face of the records, for the reason that the Land Acquisition Court is not competent to close a reference without answering it. Even if the party is not appearing, the court is expected to apply its mind to the materials available and record a finding showing the correctness or incorrectness of the amount awarded by the land acquisition authority. It has not been done in this case. Therefore, it is an error apparent on the face of the record, which requires consideration by the court. Even otherwise applying the broad principles, I may state that atleast the 3rd clause namely for any other reason also can be attracted in this case for allowing the review application. C.M.P. No. 4668/02 & C.R.P. NO. 1918/02 3 3. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the court below is directed to restore LAR 93/91 back to file and consider the case on merits after affording equal opportunities to the State as well as the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. But it has also to be stated that if the court, after adducing evidence, finds that there has been lethargy and negligence on the part of the claimant, the court may consider the factum of awarding interest for the time between closing of reference and its restoration. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 24.3.08 M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.M.P. No. 4668/02 & C.R.P. NO. 1918/02 4