An appellate authority must pass a separate, reasoned judicial order disposing of an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, rather than merely making an endorsement in the diary proceedings, to ensure procedural due process.

EASWARAN S., J --------------------------------------------

C.R.P.(LR) No.133 of 2017 --------------------------------------------

Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2026 ORDER The first respondent before the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur, in A.A.No.22 of 2016, is the revision petitioner. In a suo motu proceeding, S.M.No.1766 of 2006 dated 30.11.2006, the revision petitioner was issued a purchase certificate by the Land Tribunal, Manjeri. The purchase certificate was challenged before the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur, in A.A.No.22 of 2016. Along with the appeal, the first respondent - appellant filed I.A.No.28 of 2016, an application to condone the delay of nine years and two months in filing the appeal. The petitioner appeared and objected to the condonation of delay by filing an objection. While the matter stood thus, the Appellate Authority, for the reason best known, did not pass a separate order touching upon the respective contentions of the parties in the delay petition. On 05.01.2017, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the original authority for considering the S.M. proceedings afresh. The said order is under challenge in the present revision petition.

2. Heard Sri.Stephen V. Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri.K.Denny Devassy, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the third respondent. None appears for the second respondent.

3. The records of the proceedings indicate that I.A.No.28 of 2016 was not ordered by the Appellate Authority. However, on perusal of A diary proceedings maintained before the Appellate Authority shows that, on 05.01.2017, there was an endorsement to the effect that the delay of 3345 days was condoned and the matter was remanded back for a fresh consideration. This, in considered view of this Court, is a procedural irregularity. When a delay petition is filed along with the statutory appeal, the Appellate Authority is expected to pass a reasoned order touching upon the contentions of parties and while ordering so, decide as to whether the first respondent - appellant before it has satisfactorily explained the reasons for delay of nine years and two months. A composite order of the nature which has now been passed cannot be sustained.

4. Though the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the petitioner has not challenged the order passed in the delay petition by a separate proceeding, this Court is unable to accept the said contention because the records indicate that no separate order was passed in I.A.No.28 of 2016. A mare endorsement in the A diary proceedings stating that the delay is condoned cannot be said to be proper.

5. In such circumstances, this Court cannot sustain order dated 05.01.2017 in A.A.No.22 of 2016. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal, A.A.No.22 of 2016 will stand restored to the Appellate Authority(LR), Thrissur, along with I.A.No.28 of 2016. The Appellate Authority shall first decide the application for condonation of delay and pass a reasoned order as to whether the appellant before it had satisfied the authority in approaching the Court after a lapse of nine years and two months. As a result of the aforesaid exercise, in the Appellate Authority, proceeds to find that the delay has been properly explained, then take up an appeal and decide the same, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. Order dated 05.01.2017 in A.A.No.22 of 2016 is set aside. The appeal is restored to the file of Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur. The parties shall appear before the Appellate Authority on 05.06.2026. On appearance, the Appel