IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 LA.App..No. 181 of 2008(A) --------------------------- LAR.287/1997 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT: RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE. RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT IN LAR ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. KESAVAN SIVADASAN, VALIYATHANDAKATTIL VEETTIL, MANGADU VILLAGE. 2. NARAYANI ANANDAVALLY, VALIYATHANDAKATTIL VEETTIL, MANGADU VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN FOR R1 & 2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.M. Appln. 168 of 2008 and L.A.A. NO. 181 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009. J U D G M E N T This is an application filed to condone the delay of 929 days in filing the appeal. I had perused the affidavit as well as the certified copy of the order produced before the Court. The award was passed on 20.12.04 and the application for issuance of a copy was filed as A.860/07 on 8.1.07. The copy was received on 20.2.07. The appeal is filed on 23.10.07. A reading of the affidavit would show that there is absolutely no averment why the copy application was filed after 25 months from the date of pronouncement of judgment. It only speaks about the delay that has been caused subsequent to the receipt of the copy. I am conscious of the fact that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other because of substantial justice deserves to be preserved, the other side cannot claim to have vested right injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. So the question is C.M. Appln. 168 of 2008 and L.A.A. NO. 181 OF 2008 -:2:- whether there is any non-deliberate delay. There must be at least some averments and also some movement in the proper direction to get the delay condoned. Unfortunately the applicant herein does not reveal even a single reason for not applying in time and why it took more than two years to apply for a copy. Further a perusal of the award would reveal that the Land Acquisition Court has not accepted the claim of the claimant in toto but it fixed a much lesser compensation than what is claimed and therefore it may be a reason for not applying in time. Further it has to be held that there has been gross negligence on the part of the appellant to move an application for receipt of a copy which does not stand properly explained and so the petition to condone the delay is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. L.A.A. NO. 181 OF 2008 Since the petition to condone the delay is dismissed, this LAA is also dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-