Kerala High Court
Kesavan Sugunan vs Kidangaparambu Devaswom on 7 February, 2024
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
CRP(LR) No.100 of 2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
CRP(LR) NO. 100 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN AA 6/2004 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY
(LR), ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONERS:
1 KESAVAN SUGUNAN,
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.KESAVAN, VAZHAVELIL(H),ZILLA COURT WARD, ALAPPUZHA
- 688 013.
2 KESAVAN DINESAN
VAZHAVELIL ZILLA COURT WARD, ALAPPUZHA - 688 013.(NOW
RESIDING AT KURUMA PARAMBU, IRAVUKADU WARD,
KUTHIRAPANTHI, ALAPPUZHA).
BY ADV SHRI.M.V.S.NAMPOOTHIRY
RESPONDENTS:
1 KIDANGAPARAMBU DEVASWOM
1ST RESPONDENT, ALAPPUZHA,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
- 688 001.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA - 688
001.
3 PANKAJAKSHISOMAN
W/O.LATE KUNJAN SOMAN, VELIYIL,PERUMTHURATHUMURI,
KANJIKKUZHY,ALAPPUZHA - 629 169.
4 UDAYAMMA,
D/O.LATE KUNJAN SOMAN,VELIYIL,PERUMTHURATHUMURI,
KANJIKKUZHY,ALAPPUZHA - 629 169.
5 AMBIKA,
D/O. LATE KUNJAN SOMAN,VELIYIL,PERUMTHURATHUMURI,
KANJIKKUZHY,ALAPPUZHA - 629 169.
CRP(LR) No.100 of 2017 2
6 THANKAMAN,I
W/O.LATE CHITHARANJANALAPPATTU VELIYIL,MUHAMMA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 525.
7 JAYASOMA,
S/O. LATE CHITHARANJANALAPPATTU VELIYIL,MUHAMMA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 525.
8 JAYASREE,
D/O. LATE CHITHARANJAN(THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 8 ARE THE
APPELLANTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL)ALAPPATTU
VELIYIL,MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 525.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
SRI.JAYAN.C.DAS
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.K.P.HARISH
THIS CRP (LAND REFORMS ACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP(LR) No.100 of 2017 3
V.G.ARUN J.
-------------------------------------
C.R.P.(LR) No.100 of 2017
---------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of February 2024
ORDER
The respondents in AA No.6/2004 has filed this revision
petition, aggrieved by the order of the Land Reforms Appellate
Authority allowing the applications for setting aside abatement,
condonation of the delay, impleading and restoration of appeal
filed by the legal heirs of the first appellant.
The short facts are as under;
The rival claims for tenancy pending before the Land Tribunal
culminated in an order, which was challenged by both sides. A.A
No.6/2004 was filed by the respondent's side and A.A.No.12/2004
filed by the revision petitioners side. The first appellant in AA
No.6/2004 died during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal was
thereafter dismissed for default on 03/12/2008. The legal heirs of
the first appellant sought to get themselves impleaded and for that
purpose filed applications decided by the impugned order.
2. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that
no explanation is offered for the inordinate delay of 8 years in filing
the applications. It is submitted that there were other appellants
on the array of parties and it was impossible to believe that none
of them were aware about the dismissal of the appeal for default.
Yet another ground of challenge is regarding the consolidated order
passed in all the interlocutory applications. According to the learned
Counsel, such an order is illegal.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the
other appellants in AA No.6/2004 were the mother and sisters of
the deceased first appellant, they had no knowledge about the
pendency or fate of the appeal, since the case was being conducted
by the first appellant on his own. Much after the death of the first
appellant, his son came to know about the appeal and thereupon
tried to contact the lawyer. Unfortunately, by that time, the lawyer
had also expired and it was only after strenuous efforts that the
file could be traced out. It is further submitted that AA No.12/2004
filed by the present revision petitioners were allowed and the
matter remanded to the Land Tribunal, where it is pending
consideration. It is hence requested that the respondents herein
may also be given opportunity to contest the matter on merits.
4. Indeed, there is inordinate delay of 8 years in filing the
applications. Even then the fact remains that the appeal was
dismissed after the death of the first appellant i.e, with a dead
person on the party array. The other appellants being mother and
sisters of the first appellant, it is possible they were not aware of
the proceedings.
5. Even though there is some force in the contention of the
revision petitioners that the appellate authority went wrong in
passing a consolidated order, the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure being not applicable in strict sense to the proceedings
before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, the said defect, by
itself, is not sufficient to set aside the order. Moreover, the fact that
the appeal filed by the present revision petitioners against the very
same order is allowed and the matter remanded is also to be taken
into consideration.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. The appeal being of the year 2004 and the connected
appeal having been allowed, the appellate authority shall take the
appeal back on file and pass orders thereon within four months of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
Judge
dpk
