IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 2079 of 2003(I) ----------------------- AA.14/2001 of A.A. (LAND REFORMS),TRIVANDRUM SM.43/2000 of LAND TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/(APPELLANT): -------------------------------- ASOK KUMAR S/O. LATE KRISHNAN NAIR, NADUVILA VEEDU, NAVUKKOTTUKONAM, POWDIKKONAM, MELULIYAZHATHURA MURI, ULIYAZHATHURA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------- 1. C.JAYACHANDRA BABU, JAYACHANDRA MANDIRAM ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, VIKAS NAGAR, PANGAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (DIED) 2. JOYI S/O. VARKI, KANDAMALINE VEEDU, KUNNATHUNADU, PRALAYIKODU P.O. 3.STATE OF KERALA. ADDL.RESPONDENTS: 4.MOHANAKUMARI,W/O.LATE JAYACHANDRA BABU, RESIDING AT JAYACHANDRA MANDIRAM, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, VIKAS NAGAR, PANGAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5.HARISANKER SANKAR,S/O.LATE JAYACHANDRA BABU, DO. DO. 6.SREE LAKSHMI,D/O.MOHANAKUMARI, DO. DO. LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDENTS 4 TO 5, VIDE ORDER DATED 30.3.2010 IN I.A.NO.155/10. ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER FOR R1 SRI.G.SUDHEER FOR R4-6 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.837/04 IN C.R.P.NO.2079/03 DISMISSED. 30.3.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.2079 OF 2003 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 O R D E R The revision is directed against the order dated 31.10.2001 in A.A.No.14 of 2001 passed by the Appellate Authority (LR), Thiruvananthapuram. The revision petitioner, a third party, preferred an appeal challenging the order of the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in S.M.No.43 of 2000 assigning the right over seven cents of property in favour of the 1st respondent under Section 72 (c) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, for short, the 'Act'. Showing a fictitious person as the landlord, the 2nd respondent herein, by fraudulent means, the 1st respondent has obtained assignment over the property suppressing material facts was the case canvassed by the revision petitioner to impeach the order of assignment of the Land Tribunal preferring an appeal. The appeal was preferred with a petition to condone delay of 99 days contending that he got information of the order of assignment only when a copy of the order was produced by the 1st respondent before the police station in the enquiry over a CRP.2079/03 2 complaint in respect of the property involved. The learned Appellate authority was not inclined to accept the cause espoused by the revision petitioner for condonation of delay, with the result, the appeal was dismissed under the impugned order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. Despite steps being taken against the 2nd respondent including by special messenger as directed by this Court, service could not be effected on that respondent. Notice was returned with endorsement that he had left the place. Having regard to the challenges canvassed in the revision in the light of the endorsement made as above, I find notice to the 2nd respondent can be dispensed with, and it is ordered accordingly. 3. I heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and also the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that before the Appellate Authority, the revision petitioner had produced documents evidencing his title. A registered mortgage deed and, later, assignment deed CRP.2079/03 3 conveying title over the property in favour of his father and release deed executed by the legal heirs, after the death of his father, in his favour were produced before the appellate authority. Without adverting to any of those documents, but only on the basis of the objections raised by the 1st respondent (assignee) the delay petition was found not entertainable, and, in that view of the matter, the appeal was rejected, is the submission of the counsel. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the petitioner cannot be deemed to be an aggrieved person as there is already a civil court decree, in which, it has been held that he is not the son or legal heir of late Krishnan Nair in whose favour title over the property assigned is stated to have been conveyed under the deeds produced by the revision petitioner. When he cannot claim under the vendee covered by the documents produced, he cannot be considered as an aggrieved person is the submission of the counsel. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel with reference to the order challenged in the revision. I CRP.2079/03 4 find some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that there is total non-application of mind by the Appellate Authority in examining the merit of the delay petition moved for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. Apparently, from the tenor of the statements made in the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has blindly accepted whatever objections raised by the counsel for the 1st respondent without examining whether the revision petitioner (appellant) was an aggrieved person or he had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Delay in the present case is shown to be only a period of 99 days. Naturally, the merit of that delay has to be considered, and no doubt, with reference to the question whether the revision petitioner/appellant was an aggrieved person as well the challenge raised by the 1st respondent that the appeal has been preferred as an experimental basis on a sale deed without adverting to or looking into that documents had been accepted by the Appellate authority to conclude that the appellant is a total stranger and an appeal at his instance is not entertainable. The reasoning of the Appellate authority is perverse and cannot be accepted. No CRP.2079/03 5 doubt, the challenge canvassed by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that he is not the son nor a legal heir of the vendee covered by the sale deeds produced also deserve to be examined in the enquiry to determine whether the revision petitioner/appellant is an aggrieved person, but, it is seen no such challenge was canvassed nor considered by the Appellate authority. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the above fact came to the knowledge of the 1st respondent only at a later point of time after rejection of the appeal under the impugned order. Whatever that be, as I find that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside, it is open to the 1st respondent to raise whatever challenges available to him to show that the revision petitioner/appellant cannot be deemed to be an aggrieved person in respect of the order passed by the Land Tribunal assigning right over the seven cents of the property in his favour. The impugned order is set aside and the Appellate authority is directed to examine the matter afresh taking note of the observations made above and in accordance with law. Revision petitioner and also the 1st respondent are directed to appear before the Appellate authority on 2.6.2010. CRP.2079/03 6 The Appellate authority shall issue notice to the 2nd respondent also while conducting the enquiry on the delay petition preferred with the appeal. Revision petition is accordingly disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.2079 OF 2003 () ----------------------------------- O R D E R 30th day of March, 2010