Allowed

Kaniparambil Joseph v. Konoth Pathayapurayil Bhaskaran Nambiar

Kerala HC17 Oct 2012CRP/755/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) for refusing to condone a 243-day delay in filing an appeal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the dismissal, and directed the Authority to dispose of the appeal on merits within six months.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order; direct the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Kannur to dispose of Appeal No. 119/2000 on merits within six months.

Kaniparambil Joseph Vs Konoth Pathayapurayil… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/25TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 755 of 2008 ( )

¶6

OA.3154/1973 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KANHANGAD AA.119/2000 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

KANIPARAMBIL JOSEPH,

¶9

S/O. MATHAI, KUNDUPPALY, MALOTH VILLAGE P.O. BALAL, KOSDURG TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :

¶12

1. KONOTH PATHAYAPURAYIL BHASKARAN NAMBIAR, S/O. CHERIPPADY KUNHIKANNAN NAIR P.O. KOTTACHERY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. (DIED)

¶13

2. T.T.P. KUNHAMU, S/O.U.N. MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT UDUMBANCHOLA KAYYATH ROAD, THALASSERY-I.

¶14

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

ADL.R4 TO R7 IMPLEADED

¶16

4. ANURADHA NAMBIAR, W/O.KONOTH PATHAYAPURAYIL BHASKARAN NAMBIAR (LATE), AGED 65 YEAS, RESIDING AT P.O., KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILAGE, HOSDURG TLUK.

¶17

5. SUJA, D/O.KONOTH PATHAYAPURAYIL BHASKARAN NAMBIAR (LATE), AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT P.O. KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK.

¶18

6. SUMA, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.KONOTH PATHAYAPURAYIL BHASKARAN NAMIAR (LATE), RESIDING AT P.O. KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG ALUK.

¶19

¶20

CRP.No. 755 of 2008 ( )

¶21

7. ANUPAMA, D/O.KONOTH PATHAYAPURAYIL BHASKARAN NAMBIAR (LATE) AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT P.O. KOTTAHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK.

¶22

ADDL. R4 TO R7 ARE IMPLEDED AS THE LRS OF DECEASED R1, AS PER ORDER DT.17.10.2012 IN IA.1419/2011

¶23

R2 BY ADVS.SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶24

SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)

¶25

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶27

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶28

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶29

C.R.P No.755 of 2008

¶30

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2012

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) has by the order impugned refused to condone the delay of 243 days and has dismissed the appeal filed under Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as belated. The specific case of the petitioner who claims to be the cultivating tenant is that he came to know about the order of the Land Tribunal only in February 2000 when the Village Officer demanded him to surrender the purchase certificate earlier issued. The petitioner has clearly stated in the affidavit to condone the delay that he applied for a certified copy of the order of the Land Tribunal immediately thereafter and that the same was received on 5--8-2000. The appeal was filed without much delay and the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) should have under such circumstances condoned the delay and disposed of the appeal on merits.

¶33

I set aside the impugned order and direct the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms ) Kannur to dispose of A.A No.119/2000

¶34

C.R.P No.755 of 2008 2

¶35

on its file. The Appellate Authority shall make every endeavour to dispose of the appeal after notice to the affected parties within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶37

V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE

¶38

smm

¶39

C.R.P No.755 of 2008 3

Kaniparambil Joseph v. Konoth Pathayapurayil Bhaskaran Nambiar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaniparambil Joseph v. Konoth Pathayapurayil Bhaskaran Nambiar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Scaria Vs Mariyamma Joseph

N.Balan Vs Mrs.Devaki R.Nair

Velayudhan Vs Jacob.C.P

Krishna Shenoy Vs Ramachandra Shenoy

T.M.Rajan Vs K.K.Sadasivan

Baby Vs Eliakutty