IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 992 of 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/07/2002 IN AA.165/2000 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS), KANNUR SMP.139/1979 of LAND TRIBUNAL, IRITTY REVN. PETITIONER: APPLICANT (TENANT) ------------------------------------ EDASSERY THADATHIL JOSEPH, S/O. ULAHANNAN, EDASSERY THADATHIL, AYYANKUNNU P.O., KOOMANTHODU, KANUR-670 704. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT 1 AND 2 & LANDLORD. ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KANNUR DIVISION. 3. PARAPRAVAN TARWAD REP.BY RECEIVER SRI.M.BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, ADVOCATE, TELICHERRY. (THIRD RESPONDENT'S NAME IS STRUCK OFF AND ANOTHER PERSON IS IMPLEADED AS THIRD RESPONDENT) PARAPRAVAN THARAVAD REPRESENTED BY SRI.P.C.MAKKI, S/O.KUNHIKUTTY ALI, PALLIPOYIL HOUSE, KOTTAYAM MALABAR P.O., KOOTHUPARAMBA (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT. THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THIRD RESPONDENT IS STRICKED OUT AND INSTEAD ANOTHER PERSON IS ADDED AS THIRD RESPONDENT'S VIDE ORDER DATED 25.8.2003 IN I.A.NO.1036/2003. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKKAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2/1/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.M.P.NO.2358/2003 IN C.R.P.NO.992/2003 DISMISSED 2/1/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 992 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd January, 2008 O R D E R As per order dated 24.5.1979 in SMP.No.139/1979, on the file of the Land Tribunal, Iritty, the revision petitioner was found to be entitled to assignment of the right, title and interest of the landlord in respect of 5.75 acres of land in Sy.No.1293 of Aralam Amsom, Ayyankunnu Desom. In the suo motu proceedings, the third respondent herein was shown as the landlord. There was no contest in the suo motu proceedings. The rights of the petitioner are not discussed in the order passed by the Land Tribunal since, apparently, there was no contest. 2. The State of Kerala as well as the Divisional Forest Officer, Kannur filed A.A.No.165 of 2000, on the file of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kannur, challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal. There was delay in filing the appeal. I.A.No.337 of 2000 was filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was contended by the appellants in the appeal that they were not aware of the order passed by the Land Tribunal and that they came to know of the order only when it was produced in O.P.No.4576 of 2000 before the High Court. The revision petitioner and others had filed O.P.No.4576 of 2000 before this Court against the Forest Officials alleging that they attempted to trespass upon the property in question. The purchase certificate issued in favour of the revision petitioner was produced in that Original Petition. That Original Petition was disposed of on 18.9.2000. The revision petitioner was afforded an C.R.P. NO.992 OF 2003 :: 2 :: opportunity to make a representation before the Government for a joint verification of the land. It is stated that the joint verification was not done as mentioned in the judgment in O.P.No.4576 of 2000. 3. The application to condone the delay in filing A.A.No.165 of 2000 was allowed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 31.7.2002. On the same date, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The revision petitioner has stated in the Memorandum of Revision that the Appellate Authority heard the application for condonation of delay on 27.6.2001 and the petition was posted for orders. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 30.6.2001, 5.12.2001, 6.2.2002, 25.3.2002, 3.4.2002, 5.6.2002, 12.6.2002, 28.6.2002, 17.7.2002 and 31.7.2002. It is further stated that on 31.7.2002, the Appellate Authority passed a non-speaking order in the application for condonation of delay and without hearing the revision petitioner the appeal was also allowed. It is seen from the order in I.A.No.337 of 2000 that the Appellate Authority has not considered the application on the merits. The order passed in I.A.NO.337 of 2000, reads as follows: “Delay condoned” Normally, a non-speaking order like this would not be sustained. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the State of Kerala and the Divisional Forest Officer were not parties before the Land Tribunal and also in view of the fact that their contention is that the land in question is a vested forest, I am of the view that the order condoning the delay need not be interfered with only on the ground that it is a non-speaking order. Even otherwise, in the C.R.P. NO.992 OF 2003 :: 3 :: peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is liable to be condoned. It is not the period of delay that is relevant. The question is whether the person applying for condoning the delay has justifiable reason for getting the delay condoned. In this case, the appellants before the Appellate Authority are the Government and the Divisional Forest Officer. They were not parties before the Land Tribunal. They came to know of the order passed by the Land Tribunal only when the purchase certificate was produced before the High Court in O.P.No.4576 of 2000. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Appellate Authority was justified in condoning the delay, though the order condoning the delay is a non-speaking order. 4. At the same time, the Appellate Authority was not justified in disposing of the appeal itself on the same date on which the application for condonation of delay was allowed. After condoning the delay, the Appellate Authority was bound to post the appeal for hearing and afford an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Since there was no contest before the Land Tribunal, it was only appropriate for the Appellate Authority to allow both parties to produce such other documents and adduce evidence before the Appellate Authority to substantiate their contentions. Such an opportunity was denied by the Appellate Authority and it was not right in allowing the appeal and in setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal on the same date on which the delay was condoned. For these reasons, I am inclined to set aside the judgment dated 31.7.2000 passed by the Appellate Authority. C.R.P. NO.992 OF 2003 :: 4 :: Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. The judgment dated 31.7.2002 in A.A.No.165 of 2000 is set aside. At the same time, the order dated 31.7.2002 in I.A.No.337 of 2000 in A.A.No.165 of 2000 is confirmed. The Appellate Authority shall post the appeal for hearing and afford an opportunity of being heard to both parties. Both parties will be entitled to produce documents and to adduce evidence before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall consider the same and dispose of the case on the merits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since many of the Land Tribunals are now abolished, the Appellate Authority need not remand the case to the Land Tribunal. Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- C.R.P.NO. 992 OF 2003 G O R D E R 2nd January, 2008 ----------------------------------------------