IN -THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 9688 of 2009(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.V.JAYAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE K.K.VIJAYAN, KAITHAVALAPPIL, NAYARAMBALAM, KOCHI. BY ADV. MR. N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KOCHI TALUK. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE. 6. M.V.JOSE, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN R6 BY ADV.MR. DINESH R.SHENOY MR. V.V.UNNIKRISHNAN MR. G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 9688 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 1st day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved of the revenue sale conducted by the departmental authorities. The main grievance is that the sale conducted by the departmental authorities was full of irregularities, which hence was subjected to challenge by filing Ext.P1 petition before the third respondent u/s 53 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. When interference was declined, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 37303 of 2007, which was disposed of, directing the revisional authority to consider the petition filed by the petitioner, to condone the delay of 476 days in filing the revision petition and to pass appropriate order thereon. This led to Ext.P2 order, whereby the 'delay petition' was dismissed, whereupon the petitioner approached the first respondent by filing the second revision as provided under Sub Section 2 of 83 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The said revision petition also met with the same fate, which in turn has been subjected to challenge in the present Writ Petition. 2. The main case projected in the Writ Petition is that, dismissal of the petition to condone the delay by the second respondent as per Ext.P2 is without properly considering the reason/explanation offered in respect of the delay. The very same course has been stated as WP (C) No. 9688 of 2009 : 2 : pursued by the first respondent as well while declining interference vide Ext.P3 in the second revision preferred by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent, with specific reference to the points discussed at page 2 of Ext.P2 passed by the second respondent, submits that the merit of the contentions put forth by the petitioner with regard to the delay occurred was dealt with in detail by the 1st revisional authority and it was the said finding that has been upheld by the second revisional authority as borne by Ext.P3. This being the position, the learned counsel submits that, there is absolutely no ground for interference, particularly since the case put forth by the petitioner, both on the ground of delay as well as on merits stands negated, well supported with reasons. 4. It is not the extent of delay that counts more, but the 'explanation' in respect of delay as held by the Apex Court as per decision in N. Balakrishnan Vs. Krishnamoorthy (1998 (7) SCC page 123). Coming to the case in hand, it is very much evident from Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 that the explanation offered by the petitioner was very much considered before arriving at a conclusion and it was accordingly, that the matter was considered on merits as well. 5. This being the position, the case put forth by the petitioner as to the loss of opportunity to substantiate his case on merits and as to the rejection of the petition to condone the delay, without allegedly WP (C) No. 9688 of 2009 : 3 : considering the explanation offered does not hold water at all and hence no interference is called for. 6. However, on conclusion of the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner projects a series of hardships being caused to the petitioner if he is made to vacate the residential building without giving any breathing time and hence prays for 3 months' time to effect the vacant surrender. The learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent, fairly concedes to the above proposition, despite the fact that much loss and hardships have already been caused to the said respondent, because of the delay in having the matter finalized. 7. Considering the particular facts and circumstances and to have the finality to issue, this Court, while dismissing the above Writ Petition declining the interference, a further period of three months is granted to the petitioner to effect the vacant surrender of the building, on condition that he executes and files an affidavit to this effect before the fourth respondent forthwith. It is also made clear that, the 4th respondent can proceed with further steps for effecting the delivery in respect of other concerned items in favour of the sixth respondent. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd