K.T. Sankaran, J.

This Revision is filed against the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority dismissing applications for condoning the delay of 11161 days in filing the appeals by the revision petitioner.

2. In this Revision, the petitioner contends that the orders passed by the Land Tribunal in the suo motu proceedings initiated in favour of the first respondent in the Revision are not binding on the petitioner on the ground of fraud. It is contended that when fraud is established, the delay in filing the appeal would be irrelevant. The contesting respondents dispute the case of fraud set up by the revision petitioner. They also contend that the plea of fraud raised by the Revision Petitioner, to get over res judicata, is barred by res judicata.

3. An extent of 2.41 acres of land in Ramanattukara Village, which is a garden land and which consists of buildings, belonged to Achuthan Nair, who died on 3.3.1960. Achuthan Nair had a sister, Lakshmi Amma. Lakshmi Amma is no more. Her husband Gopalan Nair also died. The revision petitioner is one among the children of Lakshmi Amma and Gopalan Nair. The property was acquired by Achuthan Nair as per registered assignment deed dated 17.8.1935. That assignment was made by a person who had tenancy right in the property. The landowner was Abdullakutty Haji.

4. Gopalan Nair, the father of the revision petitioner, filed O.A.No.7543 of 1975 before the Land Tribunal, Beypore, under Section 72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for the assignment of the right, title and interest of the landlord and intermediary in 2.41 acres of land. In that proceeding, Achuthan Nair was shown as the intermediary and Abdullakutty Haji was shown as the land owner. Achuthan Nair was dead even before the filing of O.A. No. 7543 of 1975. His widow, Madhavikutty Amma, was impleaded as supplementary party. In O.A. No. 7543 of 1975, Gopalan Nair contended that he was the cultivating tenant in respect of the property. O.A.No.7543 of 1975 was contested by the respondents therein. The Land Tribunal, as per the order dated 25.9.1978, dismissed the OA holding that there was no evidence to show that the property was entrusted to the applicant by the intermediary and that there was no evidence to show payment of rent. The tenancy set up by Gopalan Nair was an oral lease. The Land Tribunal held that there was no evidence to prove the tenancy. The appeal filed by Gopalan Nair as A.A.No.154 of 1979 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kozhikode was dismissed by the judgment dated 6.2.1982, confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The Appellate Authority also held that Gopalan Nair failed to prove the tenancy and the landlord-tenant relationship. Though C.R.P.No.2352 of 1982 was filed by Gopalan Nair challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, the High Court dismissed the Revision by the order dated 18.7.1989.

5. After O.A.No.7543 of 1975 was filed, suo motu proceedings under Section 72C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act were initiated in S.M.C.No.562 of 1976 and S.M.C.No.558 of 1976 before the Land Tribunal No.I, Beypore, showing Madhavikutty Amma, widow of Achuthan Nair, as the cultivating tenant and Abdullakutty Haji as the land owner in respect of 1.38 acres of land in R.S.No.181/4 of Ramanattukara Village and 24 cents in R.S.No.181/3A1B of the same village respectively. These lands form part of the land included in O.A.No.7543 of 1975. The revision petitioner or his predecessor was not a party to the aforesaid suo motu cases. The Land Tribunal allowed the suo motu cases by the order dated 25.3.1976 and pursuant to the same, purchase certificates were issued to Madhavikutty Amma on 10.8.1976. The petitioner stated that he was not aware of the pendency of the suo motu cases. Challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.28 of 2007, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 5.1.2007, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file appeal before