IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 7 of 2010() ------------------- AA.215/1998 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY(LAND REFORMS),TRIVANDRUM SM NO.18/1996 of LAND TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ V.S.NALINI,W/O.DIVAKARAN,PARVEEN COTTAGE,RAMAVARMANCHIRA,KARAKONAM,VILAVANCODE TALUK,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/APPLICANT ---------------------------------- 1. SASI,S/O.CHELLAMMA OMANA,ALANCODE, VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU,AMBALATHUMKALE.P.O, KATTAKKADA. 2. AJITHA,D/O.CHELLAMMA OMANA,ALANCODE, VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU,AMBALATHUMKALE.P.O, KATTAKKADA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M.Appn.No.14 of 2010 and C.R.P.No. 7 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 8th January, 2010 ORDER Revision is directed against the order dated 30.3.2001 in A.A.No.215 of 1998 on the file of the Appellate Authority (LR), Trivandrum. A petition has also been filed to condone the delay of 2757 days in filing the revision. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. I am not satisfied of the grounds canvassed for the long delay in filing the revision. In reversal of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, the Appellate Authority has upheld the tenancy claim over the property involved, 90 cents of land, in favour of the predecessor of the respondents. The claim of tenancy was resisted by the petitioner contending that the property outstanding on a mortgage had been released by the predecessor of the respondents and others under the release deed of the year 1976. However, perusing the report of the authorised officer, the Appellate Authority was satisfied despite the execution of the release deed, the predecessor of the respondents continue to have enjoyment over the property. Even if there was a release, that has to be examined with reference to the surrender of land after its C.M.Appln.14/10 & CRP 7/10 - 2 - vesting with the Government. No such surrender by a tenant in favour of any person other than the Government can be recognised in view of Section 51 of the Land Reforms Act after that Act came into force. The materials disclose that the predecessor of the respondents had continued possession before and after release claimed by the petitioner, the opposite party in the proceedings. The conclusion formed by the Appellate Authority does not suffer from any infirmity. Further, the inordinate delay in challenging the order of the Appellate Authority is also to be taken note of. The C.M.Application and the C.R.P. are dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE