Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46796
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
SANTHAKUMARI – Appellant
Versus
APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) – Respondent
WP(C)/29458/2009
SRI.JIJO PAUL SRI.K.B.GANGESH SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
While considering delay condonation, courts require substantial justification that prevents prejudice to established rights.
Headnote:
Kudikidappukaran - Land Rights - Kerala Land Reforms Act - Sections related to restoration and delay in appeals - The court found the Appellate Authority's condonation of a lengthy delay in a land rights appeal to be erroneous, emphasizing the need for sufficient reasons and the adverse impact on established rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an order from the Appellate Authority that reinstated a delayed appeal regarding the status of their predecessor as a 'kudikidappukaran', which was previously confirmed by the Land Tribunal.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Authority acted unlawfully in condoning a delay of 2030 days in the appeal process based on insufficient grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the need for clear and convincing reasons for condoning significant delays, rejecting routine explanations, and underscoring the principle that delay defeats equity.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Appellate Authority's order and dismissed the applications to restore the appeal.
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P8 order passed in AA-144/1990 of the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur.
2. The skeletal facts relevant for the determination of the writ petition are, the petitioners are the respondents in AA-144/1990 of the above Authority, which is filed by the respondents in the original petition. The respondents have filed the appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal, Thrissur in O.A.No.38/1980. The Land Tribunal, by Ext.P8 order, held that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners named Gangadharan is a 'kudikidappukaran' under the provisions under the Kearla Land Reforms Act and he is entitled to the right under the said Act. The respondents preferred AA-51/1982 before the same Authority. The Authority dismissed the appeal. The respondents preferred CRP 1250/1983 before this Court. This Court allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal heard the original application again and confirmed its earlier order. Again the respondents filed AA-144/1990 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal for default as the counsel for the respondents was absent continuously for 5 postings days. Almost after 6 years the respondents filed I.A.No.44/2005 (Ext.P3) to restore the appeal and I.A.No.52/2005 (Ext.P5) to condone the delay of 2030 days in filing Ext.P3 application. The applications were opposed by the petitioners through Exts.P4 and P6 counter statements. The Appellate Authority, without considering the objections of the petitioners, by the impugned Ext.P8 common order, allowed Exts.P3 and P5 applications after condoning the delay of 2030 days and restored the appeal to file. Ext.P8 is perverse and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition.
3. Heard; Sri.K.B.Gangesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri.K.M.Aneesh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 9.
4. The point is whether there is any illegality in Ext.P8 order.
5. The petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was declared as a 'kudikidappukaran' as early as in the year 1980. Initially, the Land Tribunal had passed an order declaring Gangadharan as the 'kudikidappukaran'. The respondents challenged the order in AA 51/1982 and CRP No.1250/1983. This Court remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority, who in turn remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal finally by the order dated 08.11.1990 confirmed its earlier order holding that Gangadharan was a 'kudikidappukaran'. This order was again challenged by the respondents before the Appellate Authority in AA-
144/1990.
6. Admittedly, when the appeal was posted for hearing there was no representation for the respondents on five posting dates which led the Appellate Authority to dismiss the appeal by Ext.P2 order, holding that the respondents had no interest to prosecute the appeal.
7. Ext.P2 order was passed on 13.10.1999.
Nonetheless, it was only on 07.05.2005, that is after almost 6 years, that the respondents filed Ext.P3 application to restore the appeal and Ext.P5 application to condone the delay of 2030 days.
8. The reasons stated by the respondents in Ext.P5 application is that the proceedings were conducted by their uncle Sri.Mohandas, who did not inform them regarding the dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, when they came to learn that the appeal was dismissed, they filed Exts.P3 and P5 applications.
9. The Appellate Authority by Ext.P8 order held that there was no willful latches on the part of the respondents in filing the applications and accordingly condoned the delay and restored the appeal.
10. In a recent decision, a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inUniversity of Delhi v. Union of India and others [ 2019 KHC 7261 ] ha
