Quashed

Sankaran Ezhuthachan v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC2 Feb 2018WP(C)/77/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order dismissing a delay condonation petition, the Court held that since the delay was the subject of its earlier direction to consider the appeal, the appellate authority lacked power to treat it separately. The Court quashed the dismissal order.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P10 order quashed; First Respondent directed to consider the appeal within one month after providing a hearing.

Sankaran Ezhuthachan Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 13TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 77 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SANKARAN EZHUTHACHAN,

¶8

AGED 82 YEARS, S/O. LATE VELU EZHUTHACHAN, KAZHUNKIL HOUSE, VADAKKANCHERRY DESOM, VADAKKANCHERRY P.O., THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680582.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANU

¶10

SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

¶13

1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LN RD., AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA-680003.

¶14

2. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, VADAKKANCHERRY P.O., THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680582.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED ANZAR.K.J

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 77 of 2018 (H)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 1217/1975 OF SRO, VADAKKANCHERRY.
EXHIBIT P1(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 27.8.2016 BEARING THANDAPER NO. 2745 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKANCHERRY VILLAGE TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.9.2016 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FORM C UNDER RULE 11 OF THE KERALA LAND CONSERVANCY RULES, 1958.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.10.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.10.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION FILE NO. A3 19178/17 ON THE FILES OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXCLUDING THE DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO THE APPEAL PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 9.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 9.11.2017 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 9.11.2017 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER SITUATED IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2017 IN WP(C) NO. 36511 OF 20147 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. A3-19178-2017 DATED 11.12.2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXH --------------- dlk	IBITS: NIL --- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶21

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶22

W.P.(C)No.77 of 2018

¶23

Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2018

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Petitioner is allegedly the owner having absolute possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring 3.84 Ares

¶26

situate in Survey Nos.105/46 and 106/23 of Vadakancherry

¶27

Village. An appeal was pending before the appellate authority

¶28

under the Land Conservancy Act and Rules along with the delay

¶29

petition and stay application. At that point of time, petitioner

¶30

has approached this Court and secured Ext.P9 judgment,

¶31

wherein , the first respondent was directed to take a decision in

¶32

Ext.P5 appeal within a month from the date of receipt of a copy

¶33

of the judgment. Pursuant to the direction, appellate authority

¶34

has passed Ext.P10 order in the delay condonation petition

¶35

submitted by the petitioner to condone the delay of 395 days,

¶36

W.P.(C)No.77 of 2018

¶37

¶38

stating that, there are no valid reasons assigned in order to

¶39

condone the delay. It is thus challenging Ext.P10 and seeking

¶40

other consequential reliefs, this writ petition is filed.

¶41

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner learned

¶42

Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents

¶43

on record.

¶44

The sole question to be considered is whether, when

¶45

this Court directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal

¶46

itself within a period of one month, had the appellate authority

¶47

any power to consider the delay petition and dispose of the same. In my considered opinion the subject issue including pendency of the delay petition was placed before this Court, and thereafter only Ext.P9 judgment was rendered directing the appellate authority to consider the appeal pending before it.

¶48

Therefore, the court intended that the delay be condoned and

¶49

W.P.(C)No.77 of 2018

¶50

¶51

the appeal be considered. The said course of action is not

¶52

adopted by the appellate authority and therefore, in my considered opinion, approach of the appellate authority cannot be sustained, and liable to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I quash Ext.P10 and direct the first respondent to consider the appeal submitted by the petitioner itself, at the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Interim order granted by this Court will continue till such time the directives are complied with.

¶53

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶56

dlk/2/2/

Sankaran Ezhuthachan v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankaran Ezhuthachan v. Revenue Divisional Officer

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

T.A.K Thommen Vs the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk

D.Manoharan Vs State of Kerala

K. Sasikumar Vs the State of Kerala

Retna Easwaran Vs State Bank of India

St. Thomas Cathedral Kuries Vs State of Kerala

Sarada Vs the State of Kerala