IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 1148 of 2005() ---------------------------- AA.94/2001 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR OA.502/1990 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 3RD APPELLANT/3RD PARTY -------------------------------------------------------------- C.J.RAPHEL, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.C.R.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT 13/590 A, FEROKE CHUNGAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS IN OA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PUNNERI SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT PUNNERI HOUSE, NEAR 4TH RAILWAY GATE, KOZHIKODE-32. 2. PUNNERI BAHULEYAN, RESIDING AT PUNNERI HOUSE, NEAR 4TH RAILWAY GATE, KOZHIKODE-32. 3. PUNNERI LEELA, RESIDING AT PUNNERI HOUSE, NEAR 4TH RAILWAY GATE, KOZHIKODE. 4. MRS.METELDA ROGERS, RESIDING AT PUTHIYOTTIUPARAMBA, NEAR SAKALESWARI TEMPLE, THANNEERPANDAL, VENGERI, CALICUT-10. 5. RANDOLF RYON, S/O.ROGERS, RESIDING AT PUTHIYOTTIPARAMBA, NEAR SAKALESWARI TEMPLE, THANNEERPANDAL, VENGRI, CALICUT-10. 6. RONIYA, D/O. ROGERS, RESIDING AT PUTHIYOTTIPARAMBA, NEAR SAKALESWARI TEMPLE, THANNEERPANDAL, VENGERI, CALICUT – 10. svs ............2/-... ...2... CRP.NO.1148/2005 7. REEJA, D/O. ROGERS, RESIDING AT PUTHIYOTTIPARAMBA, NEAR SAKALESWARI TEMPLE, THANNEERPANDAL, VENGERI, CALICUT – 10. * ADDL. R8 IMPLEADED 8. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. * IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 8TH RESPONDENT IN THIS CRP, AS PER ORDER DATED 24/03/2010 IN I.A. 3310/2009 IN CRP. 1148/2005. R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN SRI.M.C.RATNAKARAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs M.N. KRISHNAN,J. ........................................... C.R.P.NO.1148 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Appellate Authority, Kannur in A.A.No.94/2001. The said appeal was preferred against the order of the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.A.No.502/1990 whereby the Tribunal had assigned 7.60 cents of land as beneficial enjoyment including karaima land. The respondent in the case was one representing St. Joseph Industries namely C.J. Rojers. 2. The appellants before the court were partners of the said industry and according to them, there was a civil dispute between this Rojers on one hand and other partners on the other hand. So there was no information to them regarding filing of such a petition. According to them, they knew about the order very late and immediately thereafter they had moved an appeal with a petition to condone the delay. Admittedly those persons were not given any personal notice or individual notice under Section 72(F)(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. They were also partners of the St. Joseph : 2 : C.R.P.NO.1148 OF 2005 Industries, who were competent to represent and further was there any estranged relationship which disabled the present appellant to know about the pendency of the petition. These are all matters which can be proved by evidence only. The revision petitioner before the court had not adduced any evidence before the Tribunal to satisfy the conscience of the Tribunal regarding the reason to condone the delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353) held that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. It is also the settled position of law that as far as possible the principles of natural justice also has to be looked into. So these are all matters which the appellate authority has to consider after evidence is adduced by the parties. 3. Therefore, I allow the revision petition by setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority dismissing the petition to condone the delay as well as the appeal and : 3 : C.R.P.NO.1148 OF 2005 direct the appellate authority to restore both to file and then permit the parties to adduce evidence in the petition to condone the delay and thereafter dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The appellate authority is directed to issue notice to the parties intimating the date of posting so as to enable them to appear. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : C.R.P.NO.1148 OF 2005 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A/A.S/C.R.P.NO.OF ............................................. 17th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T/O R D E R