Chandrika V.R vs Ranjitha
2024 Latest Caselaw 13910 Ker

Kerala High Court

Chandrika V.R vs Ranjitha on 28 May, 2024

Author: V.G.Arun

Bench: V.G.Arun

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
     TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                       CRP(LR) NO. 249 OF 2017
     AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.01.2017 IN OTHERS
     NO.17 OF 2015 OF A.A.(LR),THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF THE
       ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OA NO.230 OF 1972 OF LAND
                            TRIBUNAL, ANTHICAUD
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

               CHANDRIKA V.R
               AGED 66 YEARS
               AGED 66 YEARS, D/O. RAMANKUTTY,
               KAARANKUTTY,KAARATHAYIL, POOLUKARA
               P.O,MURKANIKARA, CHAZHOOR VILLAGE,THRISSUR
               BY ADV SRI.RAJIT

RESPONDENT/S:

       1       RANJITHA
               W/O. VELOOKKARA SHANMUGHAN CHETTAKULAM
               DESOMCHAZHOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK
       2       JAYASREE
               D/O. VELOOKKARA SHANMUGHAN CHETTAKULAM
               DESOMCHAZHOOR VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK
       3       SRSEELAKSHMI
               D/O. VELOOKKARA SHANMUGHAN CHETTAKULAM DESOM
               CHAZHOOR VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK
               BY ADV SMT.M.CHANDRALEKHA


           THIS CRP (LAND REFORMS ACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    28.05.2024,     THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 CRP(LR) No.249 of 2017

                                    -2-



                                  ORDER

Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024

The civil revision petition is filed

challenging an order by which the Appellate

Authority (L.R.), Thrissur condoned the delay of

41 years 11 months and 4 days. The delay was

condoned by accepting the submission of the

respondents that they had no knowledge about the

proceedings before the Land Tribunal or issuance

of purchase certificate in the year 1973, till

they received relevant information under the

Right to Information Act in the year 2015.

2. A careful scrutiny of the impugned

order, reveals that no worthwhile reason is

stated for condoning the inordinate delay of 41

years 11 months and 4 days, except reiterating

the explanation offered by the applicant. Even

though it is settled law that a hypertechinical

approach should not be adopted while deciding an

application for condonation of delay, no court or

authority can condone the delay in a casual

manner and without even assigning proper reasons.

Moreover, in the case at hand, a detailed

objection to the application for condonation of

delay had also been filed by the revision

petitioner.

Hence, the impugned order is set aside and

the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority

(LR), Thrissur for passing fresh orders on

A.A.No.17 of 2015, after hearing both sides on

the prayer for condonation of delay also.

sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/