Madras High Court
T.P.Kuraikose vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2021
CMP.No.13716 of 2020 in STA SR.No.48983 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 05.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
CMP.No.13716 of 2020 in STA SR.No.48983 of 2018
T.P.Kuraikose ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by the Collector of Nilgiris,
Collectorate, Ootacamund,
The Nilgiris.
2. Settlement Officer
(Gudalur Janmam Lands),
Collectorate, Ootacamund,
The Nilgiris.
3. The District Forest Officer,
Gudalur Division, Gudalur,
The Nilgiris.
4. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Pandalur,
The Nilgiris.
5. Sri Subramaniam Namboothirpad,
Naduvathumana Wandoor Post,
Malapuram District, Kerala. ... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13716 of 2020 in STA SR.No.48983 of 2018
Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order 4 Rule 9 (4) of A.S.
Rules praying to condone the delay of 598 days in representation of
STA.SR.No.48983 of 2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.John Zachariah
For Respondents : ...
ORDER
The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking to
condone the huge and unexplained delay of 598 days in representing the
STA.SR.No.48983 of 2018.
2. Mr.John Zachariah, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that after the Settlement Officer, Gudalur Janmam
Lands, Collectorate, Ootacamund, The Nilgiris, the 2nd respondent herein,
passed an order dated 05.01.2009 rejecting the request of the petitioner to
grant Ryotwari Patta under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 24/69 in respect of
R.S.No.250/pt having an extent of 8.48 acres and 251/pt having an extent of
2.76 acres total extent of 11.24 acres in Nelliyalam Village-II, Pandalur
Taluk, The Nilgiris District under Section 12(1) of the Act, an appeal was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13716 of 2020 in STA SR.No.48983 of 2018
filed in CMA.No.27/2018 on 25.05.2009 before the District Judge of
Nilgiris and the Jenmam Estate Abolition Tribunal at Ootacumund, The
Nilgiris, who also after considering the case of the petitioner, while
confirming the order dated 05.01.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent
Settlement Officer, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein by the
impugned judgment and decree dated 27.02.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner has been advised to file further appeal before this Court.
Accordingly, the present Statutory Appeal was filed before this Court.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that
after the dismissal of the appeal by the District Judge of Nilgiris and the
Jenmam Estate Abolition Tribunal at Ootacumund, The Nilgiris, a Statutory
Appeal has to be filed within 90 days. Accordingly, this
STA.SR.48983/2018 has been filed on 28.06.2018 before this Court, but the
same was returned by the Registry on 25.07.2018 which has to be
represented curing of the defects on or before 05.08.2018. However, since
the issue regarding the lands falling within the ambit of Section 17 of
Gudalur Jenmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,
1969 is being agitated by the Association in which the petitioner is also one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13716 of 2020 in STA SR.No.48983 of 2018
of the members before the Apex Court in W.P.(C ) No.202/1995 and the
issue was also pending before the Apex Court, it was felt that the orders
passed by the Apex Court would have a direct bearing on any appeal that
may be filed before this Court, therefore, the petitioner did not take any
steps to cure the defects and bring the matter for hearing before this Court.
In the meanwhile, 598 days in representing the appeal has occurred.
Therefore, the delay is neither willful nor wanton, but only due to the
aforesaid reason. Hence, the delay of 598 days in representing the appeal
before this Court may be condoned, it is pleaded. Learned Counsel would
also submit that if this Court feels that with any terms, the delay may be
condoned, the petitioner would also abide by the same.
4. But we are unable to find any sufficient cause to condone the
huge and unexplained delay of 598 days in representing the above appeal.
The reason being that if it is a simple or reasonable delay in representing the
appeal, this Court, in usual course always condones the delay. Delay in
representation is also equivalent to delay in filing appeal, therefore,
sufficient cause shall be given in the affidavit for condoning the delay. This
Court also invariably by mere asking, condones the delay in representation,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13716 of 2020 in STA SR.No.48983 of 2018
if it is a reasonable delay of 100 days or even 200 days. But beyond limit,
we cannot condone any huge and unexplained delay. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Baig [1999
Supp (5) SCR 197], held that the doctrine of ''delay defeats justice and
equity'' in the matter of grant of relief shall be borne in mind while
entertaining the application for delay, for, discretionary relief can be
provided to the deserving parties who do not sleep over their rights. Equity
favours a vigilant rather than an indolent citizen. This being the tenet of
law, condoning the huge delay of 598 days would cause prejustice to other
side. Therefore, in the present case, when no sufficient cause has been
shown to condone the huge and unexplained delay of 598 days in
representing the above appeal, we are not inclined to condone the long
delay.
5. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition fails and the
same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected
STA.SR.No.48983 of 2018 is rejected.
(T.R.J.,) (G.C.S.J.,)
05.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13716 of 2020 in STA SR.No.48983 of 2018
Index : Yes/No
tsi
T.RAJA, J.
and
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.
tsi
CMP.No.13716 of 2020 in
STA SR.No.48983 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13716 of 2020 in STA SR.No.48983 of 2018
05.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
