IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 LA.App..No. 22 of 2010 ----------------------------------- LAR.194/2004 of ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), RAILWAY, KANNUR. BY ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS & 2ND RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NARAYANI.P., M/O.PRAKASAN, MADATHI HOUSE, PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR. 2. SREEJA, W/O.PRAKASAN, MADATHIL HOUSE, PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR. 3. KASHYBU, S/O.PRAKASAN, MADATHI HOUSE, PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) KANNUR. ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS FOR R4 SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY FOR R1-3 SRI.ANIL GEORGE FOR R1-3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M.Appl.No.35 OF 2010 & L.A.A.No.22 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of August 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the State at the behest of the Railway Administration is to condone the delay of 742 days in filing the appeal. 2. The impugned judgment and decree were passed by the Reference Court on December 21, 2006. According to the deponent, who is a Deputy Collector and Laison Officer in the Revenue Department under the Government, an application for obtaining copy of the judgment and decree was filed on January 1, 2007 and the copy was obtained on September 17, 2007. 3. The Government Pleader, after recording his opinion about the feasibility of filing an appeal, had forwarded the file to the officer concerned on October 5, 2007. Thereafter, the remarks of the Land Acquisition officer were called for; which were forwarded to the District Collector on July 5, 2008. 4. The District Collector accorded sanction to file the appeal on July 17, 2008. The certified copy of the judgment, decree and other related papers were thereafter forwarded to the officer of the Advocate General along with District Collector’s opinion. C.M.Appl.No.35 OF 2010 & L.A.A.No.22 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 5. The Advocate General’s Office received the same on August 4, 2008. But this appeal is seen filed only on December 1, 2009. There is absolutely no explanation as to how the delay of more than one year and four months occurred. Surprisingly there is not even a semblance of an attempt to explain the delay. 6. Nevertheless, we have perused the impugned decree and judgment. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5,357 per cent. The Reference Court had enhanced the land value to Rs.28,000 per cent. This hike in the land value is sought to be challenged in this appeal. 7. In LAR 35/02 which related to acquisition of similarly situated land for the very same purpose of doubling the railway line, the same Reference Court had awarded land value at the rate of Rs.28,000/- per cent. The said judgment (Ext.A1) was relied on by the Reference Court while passing the impugned decree and judgment. Now an attempt is seen made by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal that this court in a common judgment had remitted the case in LAR 35/02 to the Reference Court for fresh consideration. 8. We have perused the judges' papers in the above case. It is seen from the common judgment that this court had upheld the hike made by the Reference Court in LAR 35/02 at the rate of Rs.28,000. However, the claimant in LAR 35/02 had claimed Rs.50,000/- per cent. It C.M.Appl.No.35 OF 2010 & L.A.A.No.22 OF 2010 :: 3 :: was therefore that this court had remanded the said case to consider whether the claim made by the claimant in that case for a further enhancement was justified or not. 9. In any view of the matter, the appeal now presented by the State is a sheer abuse of process. More importantly, as we have noticed already, the inordinate delay of 742 days has not been properly explained at all. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to dismiss the petition for condonation of delay with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondents/claimants. We do so. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. Appellant shall pay the cost to the claimants within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will be open to respondent No.1 to recover the same in accordance with law. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes