IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34988 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- VARGHESE KURIAN, PUTHENPURACKAL, SEETHATHODE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD, CHANGANACHERRY, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686 002. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34988 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner and his wife are the respondents in S.M.C.No.1/08 on the file of the 2nd respondent. These proceedings were initiated u/s.82 and 83 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. 2. In this writ petition, the only grievance of the petitioner is that, they could not file their objection so far and that they wants two months time to file such objection and therefore the 2nd respondent should be directed to grant sufficient time. 3. The learned Government Pleader has obtained instruction in this matter. According to the learned Government Pleader, the proceedings commenced on 13.6.2008 and since then, several adjournments have been granted, at the request of the petitioner, in order to enable him and his wife to file their objections. It is stated that, there is no bonafide in the request now made. 4. Ext.P2 is an application, which is allegedly made by the 2 W.P.(C).No.34988 of 2010 petitioner. A reading of Ext.P2 prima facie indicates that, it is not a case of willful default but it was for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner and his wife, that they could not file their objections. In that view of the matter, I feel that, to meet the ends of justice, one more adjournment should be given to the petitioner. Therefore, I direct that, on the production of copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent shall give, four weeks time to the petitioner to enable him and his wife to file objection in the proceedings. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. ami/