IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29015 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AA.33/2006 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T.V.SAVITHRI ANTHERJANAM, W/O.LATE ESWARAN NAMBOODIRI, THAZHATHE VATTAPARAMBILLAM, KARANTHAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. T.V.ESWARAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O.ESWARAN NAMBOODIRI T.V., RETIRED TEACHER, -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SREEDEVI ANTHERJANAM, W/O.LATE ESWARAN NAMBOODIRI, THAZHATHE VATTAPARAMBILLAM, SASTHAA NAGAR, THIRUVAMBADI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. JAYASREE T.V., D/O.LATE ESWARAN NAMBOODIRI REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SREEDEVI ANTHERJANAM -DO-. 3. SAVITHRI ANTHERJANAM, D/O.LATE KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, -DO-. 4. THIRUVILLAM KUNNU DEVASWOM REPRESENTED BY MANAGING TRUSTEE, KARANTHAD P.O., RAMANTHALI. 5. APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL FOR R1 SRI.B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.29015/09 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.75/06 IN A.A.NO.33/06 DATED 17.7.2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.75/06 DATED 9.11.2007. EXT.P2(a): COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.5.2009 IN I.A.NO.75/06 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.29015 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T An order passed by the Land Tribunal issuing purchase certificate to the 1st petitioner recognising her tenancy right over 22.5 cents of land was challenged by the predecessor of the present respondents by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Kannur) with a petition to condone delay of nearly 29 years. The 2nd petitioner, who claimed of having obtained some right over the property, moved an application for his impleadment in the proceedings. A detailed objection is stated to have been filed by the petitioners against the petition to condone delay. The Appellate Authority on the delay petition passed Ext.P3 order, which reads thus: “Heard both parties. The reasons put forth are found genuine. I.A. (Delay) allowed.” WPC.29015/09 2 Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Notice given the respondents have entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. Evidently, the appellate authority has not applied its mind on the question of delay sought to be condoned for preferring the appeal despite serious objections raised by the opposite party. Whether the appellant had made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay, that too, of a considerable period of nearly 29 years, is a matter to be examined objectively on the basis of materials, if any, tendered before that authority. Disposing of that delay petition without expressing any finding whether sufficient cause has been made out or not for condonation cannot be considered as an order which could be passed by a quasi judicial authority under law. So much so, setting aside Ext.P3 order, I direct the court below to consider the delay petition WPC.29015/09 3 afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Writ petition is accordingly disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp