IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 CRP.No. 580 of 2008() ------------------------------- (I.A.NO.68/2006 IN A.A.NO.25/2006 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS), KANNUR. S.M.NO.455/1997 OF DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND TRIBUNAL), KANNUR --------------------------------- REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THAZHATHUVEETTIL OTHAYOTH SAROJINI, D/O. PARVATHI AMMA, CHUZHALI AMSOM DESOM, CHUZHAIL P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, CHUZHALI DEVASWOM, CHUZHALI, CHUZHALI P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.580 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the appellant in A.A.No.25 of 2006 of the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur, aggrieved by order dated 11.03.2008 dismissing I.A.No.68 of 2006 for condonation of delay of 1056 days and consequently dismissed the appeal - A.A.No.25 of 2006. That appeal arose from an order of the Land Tribunal, Kannur in S.M.P.No.455 of 1997 dismissing the proceeding for want of evidence. Appeal was preferred with a delay of 1056 days. It is stated that since petitioner was laid up from 11.06.2004 onwards, a copy of the order was applied on 20.08.2004. Copy of the order was received on 14.10.2004. The appeal was filed on 10.06.2006. The application was opposed by the respondent before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority found that petitioner has not adduced any evidence in support of explanation for the delay and dismissed I.A.No.68 of 2006 and consequently the appeal – A.A.No.25 of 2006 was also dismissed. That order is under challenge. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the respondent. Learned counsel for petitioner requested that petitioner may be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the explanation for the delay. That request is resisted by the respondent contending that the Land Tribunal passed the order on 23.08.2003, copy application was filed on 20.08.2004 and CRP No.580/2008 2 the copy of order was received on 14.10.2004. But the appeal was preferred on 10.06.2006 with a delay of 1056 days. The said delay has not been explained. 3. It is seen from the impugned order that no evidence was adduced by petitioner with respect to the delay in filing the appeal. Having regard to the circumstances I am inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of the explanation for delay. Resultantly this civil revision is allowed. Order dated 11.03.2008 on I.A.No.68 of 2006 dismissing the said application and consequently A.A.No.25 of 2006 are set aside. I.A.No.68 of 2006 is remitted to the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur for fresh decision after giving parties opportunity to adduce evidence on their plea on I.A.No.68 of 2006. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks