IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 CRP.No. 652 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN AA.8/2006 IN OA.2/2001 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/APPLICANT ------------------------------ THARIPADTH MUHAMMED, AGED 81, S/O. ABDULLA, MUKKATH PARAMBA HOUSE, P.O. OLAVANNA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/STATE ------------------------- 1. MUTHALAKANDY MALU, D/O. VELU, MUKKATH PARAMA HOUSE, P.O. OLAVANNA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (GOVERNMENT IS MADE A PARTY AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTIOIN 103 (1A) OF THE LAND REFORMS ACT, 1963. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P. No. 652 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th December, 2008. O R D E R The revision petitioner was the appellant before the land reforms appellate authority, he having filed filed A.A.8/2006 assailing the order of the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode dismissing O.A.2/2001 filed by him under Section 80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The appeal having been filed much out of time, I.A.15/2006 was filed in the said appeal for condonation of delay. The said application was dismissed by the land reforms appellate authority vide order dated 27.3.2007 and consequently the appeal also was dismissed and it is assailing the said dismissal that the C.R.P is filed. 2. The appellate authority has observed that the petitioner filed copy application on 12.12.2004 for copy of order in O.A.2/2001 dismissed on 22.11.2004 and copy of order was delivered to him on 20.12.2004 and consequently the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 30.1.2005, but is filed on 27.2.2006 with a delay of 394 days. Petitioner contended that C.R.P 652/2008 2 delay was on account of his ill health as he was suffering from rheumatic and asthma complaints. He also produced photocopy of o.p. Ticket and the reference o.p ticket for treatment taken at medical college hospital, Calicut in connection with the injury sustained to his head by falling into a gutter on 23.8.2003. The appellate authority observed that all o.p tickets are prior to the order passed on 22.11.2004 in O.A 2/2001 and were all around the period 23.8.2003, the date on which he fell into gutter. It was also observed that though copy of order was delivered to him on 20.12.2004 and the appeal time was over by 30.1.2005 there is no valid explanation at all for the delay between 30.1.2005 and 27.2.2006 viz., for more than one year. It is further seen observed by the appellate authority in the order impugned that the petitioner/appellant tendered evidence as A.W.1 and he admitted during examination that he had not contacted his lawyer ever after the passing of the order by the land tribunal and hence the delay in filing the appeal. It is finding on merits that there is absolutely no ground to condone the delay that the appellate authority dismissed I.A.15/2006 and consequently appeal filed as A.A.8/2006 as well and, therefore, there is no merit in this revision petition assailing the said order. It is further seen from a true copy of order in C.R.P 652/2008 3 O.A.2/2001 filed along with this revision that the petitioner had earlier filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Beypore as O.A.1470/1970 under Section 80B of the Land Reforms Act and that purchase was allowed as per the said application though the extent was limited to 0.95 cents. It could only be for the reason that the kudikidappu was overlapping properties belonging to two persons, which however, is not evidenced by the records produced. The petitioner however, did not prefer any appeal from the order in O.A.1470/1970 and the said order became final. It is thereafter that he filed O.A.2/2001 before the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode for purchase under Section 80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The said application was being dismissed by the land tribunal holding that the claim is barred by res judicata in view of the provisions under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code because of the order in O.A.1470/1970 which has become final. Hence, on merits also I do not find any arguable case for the petitioner. In the circumstances there is no merit in the civil revision petition and the C.R.P is dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE jj