IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 652 of 2008()
1. THARIPADTH MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MUTHALAKANDY MALU,
... Respondent
2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.FIROZ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :04/12/2008
O R D E R
K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P. No. 652 OF 2008
-------------------------------
Dated this the 4th December, 2008.
O R D E R
The revision petitioner was the appellant before the land
reforms appellate authority, he having filed filed A.A.8/2006
assailing the order of the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode dismissing
O.A.2/2001 filed by him under Section 80B of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act. The appeal having been filed much out of time,
I.A.15/2006 was filed in the said appeal for condonation of delay.
The said application was dismissed by the land reforms appellate
authority vide order dated 27.3.2007 and consequently the appeal
also was dismissed and it is assailing the said dismissal that the
C.R.P is filed.
2. The appellate authority has observed that the petitioner
filed copy application on 12.12.2004 for copy of order in
O.A.2/2001 dismissed on 22.11.2004 and copy of order was
delivered to him on 20.12.2004 and consequently the appeal ought
to have been filed on or before 30.1.2005, but is filed on
27.2.2006 with a delay of 394 days. Petitioner contended that
C.R.P 652/2008 2
delay was on account of his ill health as he was suffering from
rheumatic and asthma complaints. He also produced photocopy of
o.p. Ticket and the reference o.p ticket for treatment taken at
medical college hospital, Calicut in connection with the injury
sustained to his head by falling into a gutter on 23.8.2003. The
appellate authority observed that all o.p tickets are prior to the
order passed on 22.11.2004 in O.A 2/2001 and were all around the
period 23.8.2003, the date on which he fell into gutter. It was also
observed that though copy of order was delivered to him on
20.12.2004 and the appeal time was over by 30.1.2005 there is no
valid explanation at all for the delay between 30.1.2005 and
27.2.2006 viz., for more than one year. It is further seen observed
by the appellate authority in the order impugned that the
petitioner/appellant tendered evidence as A.W.1 and he admitted
during examination that he had not contacted his lawyer ever after
the passing of the order by the land tribunal and hence the delay in
filing the appeal. It is finding on merits that there is absolutely no
ground to condone the delay that the appellate authority dismissed
I.A.15/2006 and consequently appeal filed as A.A.8/2006 as well
and, therefore, there is no merit in this revision petition assailing
the said order. It is further seen from a true copy of order in
C.R.P 652/2008 3
O.A.2/2001 filed along with this revision that the petitioner had
earlier filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Beypore as
O.A.1470/1970 under Section 80B of the Land Reforms Act and that
purchase was allowed as per the said application though the extent
was limited to 0.95 cents. It could only be for the reason that the
kudikidappu was overlapping properties belonging to two persons,
which however, is not evidenced by the records produced. The
petitioner however, did not prefer any appeal from the order in
O.A.1470/1970 and the said order became final. It is thereafter
that he filed O.A.2/2001 before the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode for
purchase under Section 80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The
said application was being dismissed by the land tribunal holding
that the claim is barred by res judicata in view of the provisions
under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code because of the order in
O.A.1470/1970 which has become final. Hence, on merits also I do
not find any arguable case for the petitioner. In the circumstances
there is no merit in the civil revision petition and the C.R.P is
dismissed.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN
JUDGE
jj