Kerala High Court
G. Girija vs The State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 2197 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
G. GIRIJA
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O PRASANNA KUMAR A., AMRA- 206, VALIYAVILA VEEDU,
EDAKKODE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW
RESIDING AT TC 25/742, POOCHADIVILA VEEDU, PLAMOODU,
PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695004
BY ADV J.G.SYAMNATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695043
3 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
LAND ACQUISITION (RAILWAY), NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695020
OTHER PRESENT:
GP - AJITH VISWANATHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.2197 of 2024 2
VIJU ABRAHAM,J
-------------------
W.P.(C).No.2197 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court
challenging Ext.P6 order wherein Ext.P4
application submitted by the petitioner has been
rejected stating that no delay condonation
petition has been filed stating valid reasons.
2. Petitioner submits that along with Ext.P4,
Ext. P5 petition seeking to condone the delay was
also preferred.
3. The learned Government Pleader upon
instructions submitted that the essence of Ext.P6
order is that the application for condonation of
delay was dismissed since no valid reasons have
been stated therein. A perusal of Ext.P5 would
reveal that the petitioner is an aged lady and is
suffering from serious ailments in connection with
her health issues, that is the reason why she
could not file the application within time. It is
seen that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged
63. A reading of paragraph 5 of the delay petition
would reveal that reasons have been stated for not
preferring an application within time. A perusal
of Ext.P6 would reveal that none of the aspects
was considered while rejecting the application.
4. In view of the same, I am of the opinion
that the matter requires reconsideration at the
hands of the 3rd respondent. Ext.P6 is set aside,
with a consequential direction to the 3rd
respondent to reconsider Ext.P4 application and
Ext.P5 delay condonation petition taking into
consideration the reasons stated therein and to
pass reasoned order after affording an opportunity
of being heard to the petitioner, within an outer
limit of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of the judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM,
JUDGE
pm
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2197/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID
RECEIPT DATED 09-05-2022
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF AWARD IN
LAC 766/2021 DATED 11-07-2022
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE EVICTION MAHAZAR IN
LAC 766/2021 DATED 02-08-2022
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR
REFERENCE TO COURTS FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 03-07-2023
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION
PETITION DATED 03-07-2023 FILED ALONG
WITH THE APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE TO
COURTS
Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-11-
2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
