IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19435 of 2008(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ----------------- THRESSIAMMA JOHN, AGED 57, W/O.JHON, PUTHUPPALLIL HOUSE, POTHAMEDU KARA, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT PUTHUPPALLIL HOUSE, MYLAKOMPU KARA, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SRI.THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SRI.C.N.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 33. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 3. THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), DEVIKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.19435 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was assigned with certain government lands on the basis of application filed by the petitioner on the ground that she is in prior possession of the land and she is eligible for such assignment as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules. Subsequently on the ground that the assignee had no prior possession of the land, the assignment of unoccupied land is irregular and the family income furnished by the petitioner is not correct, because of which she was not eligible for assignment, a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the assignment order and the patta issued to the petitioner should not be cancelled. Pursuant thereto, by Ext.P2 order dated 5.5.1995 the said assignment and patta were cancelled. Against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal along with a petition to condone the delay of 3331 days in W.P(C)No.19435 of 2008 - 2 - filing the same. The reason stated in the affidavit accompanying the petition to condone delay was that the Advocate with whom the matter was entrusted for filing appeal before the Collector did not file the same. Ext.P5 affidavit of the Advocate was also filed to explain the delay. However, the District Collector by Ext.P4 order rejected the appeal. The Revision filed before the Commissioner of Land Revenue also met with the same fate, as per Ext.P7 order. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2, Ext.P4 and Ext.P7 orders in this writ petition. 2. I have to first decide whether the inordinate delay of 3331 days can be condoned on the explanation furnished by the petitioner. The only explanation is contained in Ext.P5 affidavit of the Advocate which reads thus: 1. That I am an Advocate practicing at Adimaly. Smt. Thressiamma John, Puthuppallil House, Pothamdedu Kara, Pallivasal village, Devikulam Taluk now residing at Pothuppallil House, Mylakompu kara, Kumaramangalam village, Thodupuzha Taluk had instructed me to file an Appeal against the Order of Asst. Collector, Devikulam by which the Patta bearing No. 13632 dated 22.12.1993 was cancelled. I had prepared the Appeal and entrusted the same with my clerk for filing before the District Collector, Idukki. I was under the impression that the Appeal was W.P(C)No.19435 of 2008 - 3 - duly filed. In the mean time my clerk left the office and I was awaiting for notice from the District Collector. 2. That from 1998 onwards I was undergoing treatment for Coronary Artery disease and during 2000 I had underwent an Angioplasty and on 1.3.2005 I had undergone bye-pass surgery at Lissei Hospital, Ernakulam. Now that I came to know from Smt. Thressiamma John that on verification at the Collectorate her Appeal was not found and that she preferred an Appeal through another Advocate and that Advocate failed to contact me since I was admitted in the hospital for treatment of coronary artery disease.” 4. The same does not state as to when exactly the petitioner had entrusted the matter to the Advocate or the date when the Advocate gave the appeal to the clerk for filing. Of course it is said that from 1998 onwards, the Advocate had undergone treatment for Coronary Artery disease. But there is no explanation whatsoever in the affidavit for the delay between 5.5.1995 and 1998. I am of opinion that such large extent of delay cannot easily be condoned on such vague averments. In any event the petitioner has no answer to the finding in Ext.P2 that her husband was an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department. The very purpose of the Land W.P(C)No.19435 of 2008 - 4 - Assignment Act and Rules is to assign land to landless people who cannot afford to buy land at market rates. The petitioner is clearly not a person eligible for such assignment, her husband having been an Assistant Executive Engineer in Public Works Department at the relevant time as a result of which the income of the petitioner's family is much higher than the limit prescribed in the Land Assignment Rules. On merit also, I do not find anything to support the case of the petitioner. For all the above reasons, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed refusing to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner in view of the above facts. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs