IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 525 of 2011(A) ------------------------------- LAR.153/1999 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------------- ABU, S/O. ABDUL REHIMAN, MATTAMPARAMBIL, PONNURUNNI. BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), KOCHIN REFINERIES LTD.-682309 2. THE SENIOR INSTALLATION MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., ERNAKULAM.-682309 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SMT.TUSHARA JAMES THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Application No.1168 of 2011 & L. A. A. No.525 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This application seeking condonation of delay of about 10 years (3528 days to be precise) is opposed by the Government very seriously. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Deputy Collector concerned to this application. We have heard submissions of Sri.E.D.George, the learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri.C.R.Shyamkumar, the learned senior Government Pleader and Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority. The argument of Sri.George was that in respect of an identical property Reference Court enhanced land value by 30% more. According to Sri.George, this appeal is meritorious and the appellant is entitled for getting the value of his land re-fixed by enhancing the same by 30%. The submission of the C. M. Application No.1168 of 2011 -2- learned senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority was that this is a case where there was gross negligence on the part of the appellant. If the appellant had shown at least reasonable diligence he could have preferred the appeal on time. It is pointed out that the averments in the affidavit which the petitioner has sworn to in support of the application for condonation of delay are not at all satisfactory. The only averment is that the petitioner came to know about the award of the Reference Court enhancing the land value of an identical property by 30% only recently. 2. We find force in the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority. The tenor of the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner in support of the application filed by him for condoning the inordinate delay of 3528 days is one of casualness. It is clear to us that the appellant was fully satisfied with what was awarded to him by the Reference Court. The idea of instituting the present appeal struck him C. M. Application No.1168 of 2011 -3- only now when after about 10 years he got news that a neighbouring property has been awarded a little more than what was awarded to him. Even applying the liberal standards laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353) and Shankarrao v. Chandrasenkunwar (AIR 1987 SC 1726) we do not find justification for condoning the delay. Delay petition is dismissed. The appeal is rejected as time barred. Refund the full court fee remitted on the appeal memo to Sri.E.D.George, counsel for the appellant. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE C. M. Application No.1168 of 2011 -4-