IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 15172 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AA.40/2004 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. KARAYAPPALLI AMBU, S/O.CHERIYA MANICKAM, AGED 77 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, KELOTH, P.O.PAYYANNUR-670 307. 2. EDATHILE VALAPPIL JANAKI, W/O.KARAYAPPALLI AMBU, AGED 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, KELOTH, P.O.PAYYANUR-670 307. BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KARAYAPPALLI JANAKI, D/O.MANICKAM, AGED 85 YEARS, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE, KELOTH, P.O.PAYYANNUR-670 307. 2. APPELLATE AUTHORITY (L.R.), KANNUR-1. ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL FOR R1 SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15172 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : AFFIDAVIT DATED JULY 2004 FILED IN SUPPORT OF I.A.92/2004 IN A.A.40/04 EXHIBIT P2 : COUNTER STATEMENT DTD 15-10-2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN I.A.92/2004 EXHIBIT P3 : NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED BY THE WRIT PETITIONERS IN I.A.92/2004 IN A.A.40/04 EXHIBIT P4 : ORDER OF the APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), KANNUR DTD 27-05-2009 I.A.92/04 IN A.A.40/04 EXHIBIT P5 : JUDGMENT DTD 20-11-2009 IN W.P.C.NO.29015 OF 2009 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL True Copy P.A to Judge THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.15172 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition is in challenge of Ext.P4, order passed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kannur (for short, “the Appellate Authority”) on I.A.No.92 of 2004 in A.A.No.40 of 2004 of that Authority. That was an appeal filed by respondent No.1 against order dated 31-12-1977 in O.A.No.20739 of 1976 of the Land Tribunal, Payyannur. Respondent No.1 filed that application to purchase landlord's rights. As per the impugned order, Land Tribunal ordered assignment of landlord's rights in favour of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1. That order was challenged by respondent No.1 in A.A.No.40 of 2004 and to condone the delay of 26 years and 7 months in filing the appeal she filed I.A.No.92 of 2004. In the affidavit in support of Ext.P1, application for condonation of delay respondent No.1 stated that it was only in the year 2002 that she learned that the purchase certificate was issued in favour of petitioner No.1 also. That application was objected by petitioners and they produced Exts.B1 to B7 to support their contention. Land Tribunal passed the impugned order stating as follows:- W.P(C).No.15172 of 2010 : 2 : “ Heard both sides. The reason narrated to condone delay is found genuine. Hence I.A(delay) is allowed.” That order is under challenge. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners placing reliance on the decision in Habeeb Vs Latheef (1998 (1) KLT 28) that even a quasi judicial authority is bound to state reasons while passing an order and that such authority should have applied its mind on the questions involved. Learned counsel requested that Ext.P4, order may be set aside. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the order. 2. I have extracted the order passed by the Appellate Authority. That order does not show that Appellate Authority has applied mind, considered the rival contentions in the matter of condonation of delay and come to a proper conclusion. I must also bear in mind that though respondent No.1 has a contention that she was unaware of nature of the order, she was vigorously contesting O.A.No.20739 of 1976 and that delay involved is about 26 years and 7 months. No doubt, it not the length of delay that is relevant but the reason for the delay that the Appellate Authority has to take into account. On going through the order under challenge I find that it does not reflect application of mind or consideration of the question involved in a proper manner. That W.P(C).No.15172 of 2010 : 3 : order therefore cannot be sustained. Resultantly this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P4, order is set aside. Ext.P1, application is remitted to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration and decision on merit of the application. The Appellate Authority shall dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-