1. A common question arises in these Civil Revision Petitions. The revision petitioners in these Revisions are the same. The contesting respondents in these Revisions, though different, are claiming tenancy right in respect of the land which is claimed by the petitioners. Therefore, all these Revisions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The revision petitioners in these Revisions are hereinafter referred to as the petitioners and the respondents are referred to as the tenants.

3. S.M.Nos.401 of 1982, 402 of 1982 and 404 of 1982 were initiated in favour of the tenants under Section 72C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal passed orders in their favour holding that they are cultivating tenants. The tenant in S.M.No.401 of 1982 was held entitled to get assignment of an extent of 2.58 acres of land. The tenant in S.M.No.402 of 1982 was held entitled to assignment of an extent of six acres of land and the tenant in S.M.No.404 of 1982 was found to be entitled to get assignment of five acres of land. The petitioners herein were not made parties to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. According to the petitioners, they were not aware of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal.

4. The petitioners filed O.S.No.295 of 1992, on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Kannur, against the tenants and others. The suit was filed originally for permanent prohibitory injunction. Later, a prayer for declaration of title and possession was also incorporated, it is an admitted case that the properties originally belonged to Chirakkai Koviiakam. The petitioners are members of Chirakkai Kovilakam. The case of the petitioners is that the properties claimed by the tenants were allotted to the petitioners as per the partition deed No. 1392 of 1956., executed among the members of the Kovilakam. The properties are scheduled in schedule No.36 of the partition deed. According to the petitioners, they are in direct possession of the properties, in the suit, a written statement was filed on 27.10.1992, stating that the tenants have obtained purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal as per the orders in the three suo motu proceedings mentioned above.

5. The petitioners filed A.A.Nos.181 of 1992, 170 of 1992 and 171 of 1992, on the file of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kannur, challenging the orders passed by the Land Tribunal. There was delay in filing the appeals. Applications were filed by the petitioners for condoning the delay. In the applications, the petitioners contended that only when written statement in O.S.No.295 of 1992 was filed, they came to know about the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. On the same date they applied for certified copy of the orders of the Land Tribunal. Certified copies were received on 14.11.1992 and the appeals were filed on 21.12.1992.

6. The petitioners contended before the Appellate Authority that O.S.No.295 of 1992 was decreed in their favour by the civil court as per was fiied by one of the tenants, that appeal was dismissed on 12.7.1994.

7. The Appellate Authority held that the delay in filing the appeals is not liable to be condoned. Accordingly, the applications for condoning the delay in filing the appeals were dismissed and consequently, by the same judgment, the appeals were also dismissed. The petitioners challenge in these Revisions the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority.

8. The Appellate Authority mainly considered the merits of the appeals. With reference to the judgment of the civil court, the Appellate Authority held as follows:

“Even though the present appellants have got certain lands in Re-survey No.47/1A and 47/1B etc. as per partition deed and also the decrees of the Munsiff Court and Sub Court are in favour of them they don’t have any physical possession over the land in question...... Regarding the Munsiff Court order and Sub Court order, it can be seen that the tenancy matter was not discussed in the above decrees. The O.S filed by