IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 RP.No. 461 of 1999(A) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CMP NO. 232/98 IN CRP.110/1998 Dated 04/03/1999 ................................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER IN CRP : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R.BINDU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN CRP -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VAZHAYIL PEEDIKAYIL PARAYAYI CHEEKUNNUMAL VATAKARA TALUK. 2. SMT. SAINABA, W/O. VAZHAYIL PEEDIKAYIL PARAYAYI CHEEKUNNUMMAL, NARIPPATTA VILLAGE, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008 ALONG WITH RP NO. 8 OF 2000 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== R.P. Nos.461/1999 & 8 OF 2000 in CRP No.110/1998 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of January 2008 O R D E R These review petitions are preferred against the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.110 of 1998 and C.M.P.No.232 of 1998. C.M.P.No.232 of 1998 was filed to condone the delay in filing the C.R.P. The Taluk Land Board passed the order on 31.10.1995 and the C.R.P. was filed in the year 1998. This Court considered the delay condonation application very elaborately and found that though the order was passed by the Taluk Land Board as early as on 31.10.1995, it took nearly one year for the Secretary, Land Board to approve the proposal for filing the revision. Thereafter it appears that the matter reached the Advocate General's office only on 28.11.1996. By the time the Government Pleader concerned resigned and later it was filed only on 8.12.1997. This Court also found that a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit was filed only on 10.2.1998. It was pointed out by this Court that Rule 94(2) of the Tenancy Rules expressly provides for a period of one year as the time for filing revision by the Government and by the citizen within 45 days. The court also found RPs 461/99 &8/00 in CRP 11/98 -:2:- that it is not open for the State to ask for further time on vague grounds such as exigencies of service or delay in finalisation of the procedural formalities. This Court also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in P.K.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala(AIR 1998 SC 2276) and held that the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds and dismissed the delay condonation application. 2. The learned Government Pleader relying on the ground of the memorandum of revision would argue that a lenient approach is necessary in the Governmental matters and therefore the matter requires reconsideration. It is true that there can be some leniency, but not totally. It is not supported by any valid materials. Therefore I do not find any ground to review the order of this Court because there is no error apparent on the face of the record and none of the ingredients necessary to permit a review under Order 47 of the C.P.C. is present in this case. 3. Even then for the purpose of completion of the matter, I may look into the merit of the case as well. The whole thing centers around the exemption granted to about 43.50 acres of land. By a previous order of the Taluk Land Board dated 31.5.1990 in paragraph 5, it is specifically stated that the year of plantation is 1954, 56 and 57 and replantation has been done subsequently. So, the Board found that under Section 85(7) of the RPs 461/99 &8/00 in CRP 11/98 -:3:- KLR Act, this land cannot be taken into consideration since the area is a rubber plantation prior to 1.4.1964. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit before me that this order has never been challenged and therefore it has become conclusive. The Taluk Land Board in the impugned order also refers to the same in paragraph 8 of its order. So, one cannot hod that there is no application of mind or non-consideration of the materials. On that account also I feel no great injustice has been done to the Government by dismissing the revision on the ground of delay. Therefore I find that both the review petitions are devoid of merit and they are dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-