The High Court of Kerala disposed of a civil revision petition without deciding on the maintainability of the revision against an interim order condoning delay, preserving the petitioner's right to challenge the issue in the final revision against the Appellate Authority's judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933
CRP.No. 622 of 2010()
--------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2/2009 IN AA.3/2009 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR
REVN. PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT NO.1
----------------------------------------------------------
KOLOTH VALAPPIL NARAYANAN, KAVUTHEEYAN PARAMBA, KADAMBOOR, P.O.ETAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN: 670 663.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL SRI.K.DILIP SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES
RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANT & RESPONDENT NO.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE CHAIRMAN, TRUSTEE BOARD, PUTHRIKOVIL DEVASWOM, P.O.ETAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN: 670 663.
2. KUNNATH CHAKKARAYAN RADHA, KADAMBUR AMSOM DESOM, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN: 670 011.
3. APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
dmb
CRP.No. 622 of 2010
I.A.NOS.2942/2010 & 703/2011
DISMISSED
Sd/-
4.7.2011 THOMAS P.JOSEPH JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
dmb
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C.R.P. No.622 of 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 4th day of July 2011
O R D E R
This civil revision arises from the order passed by the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur on I.A.No.2 of 2009 in A.A.No.3 of 2009 filed by the first respondent challenging the order of the Land Tribunal, Kannur in O.A.No.7364 of 1975. The Land Tribunal passed the order in respect of 1.65 acres. The first respondent challenged the order in appeal and filed an application for condoning the delay of 11,920 days. While the appeal and I.A.No.2 of 2009 were pending before the Appellate Authority, first respondent approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.28902 of 2009 for a direction to the Appellate Authority for early disposal of the application. This Court as
per judgment dated February 4, 2010 directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of I.A.No.2 of 2009 as early as possible and observed that in case delay is condoned, the appeal has to be entertained and the same shall be disposed of within one month thereafter.
C.R.P. No.622 of 2010
-: 2 :-
C.R.P. No.622 of 2010
-: 3 :-
or, in view of the decision in the writ petition petitioner is precluded from challenging the order condoning the delay. Reason is that in case the appeal is ultimately decided against petitioner, he has the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the Appellate Authority in a revision under Sec.103 of the Act and in that revision, it is open to the petitioner to challenge correctness of the order allowing I.A.No.2 of 2009. This is not disputed by learned counsel for respondents also. In the above circumstance, it is not necessary to decide this revision in challenging the order on I.A.No.2 of 2009.
Resultantly this C.R.P is disposed of reserving right of petitioner to challenge correctness of the order on I.A.No.2 of 2009 in a revision preferred against judgment of the Appellate Authority.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
Jvt
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a revision is maintainable under Sec. 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act against an interim order granting conditional condonation of delay?
Whether the petitioner is precluded from challenging the interim order dispensing with delay due to a previous writ court judgment?
Can the challenge to the interim order be deferred to a final revision against the Appellate Authority's judgment pending on the main appeal?
Koloth Valappil Narayanan
Kunnath Chakkayan Radha
Appellate Authority (LR) Kannur
The Chairman, Trustee Board, Puthrikovil Devaswom
Thomas P. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
