Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 762 (KER)

K. v. Zakeer Hussain VS Land Revenue Commissioner

2024-07-01

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has been given a patta in respect of the land bearing Re-Survey 1 of Edappal Village, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram district. It is the case of the petitioner that an attempt has been made to dislodge the petitioner from the property and the petitioner filed O.S. No. 127/2008 before the Sub Court, Tirur, in which a decree was passed preventing eviction of the petitioner. It is submitted that an appeal is pending against the judgment/decree before this Court. It is further submitted that during the pendency of those proceedings, proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act were initiated by the Tahasildar and Revenue officials. As per Ext.P1 judgment, this Court directed the Tahasildar to the effect that the petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing before proceeding further. Thereafter, the Tahasildar rejected the contentions of the petitioner and hence an appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was also rejected as per Ext.P2 order. Against that, it is submitted that the petitioner approached the District Collector. According to the petitioner, the order passed by the District Collector in the appeal was not served to the petitioner. When there was an attempt to evict the petitioner forcefully, the suit referred to above was filed, and an order was obtained. Thereafter, a revision was filed before the Land Revenue Commissioner as evident by Ext.P3, is the submission. The definite case of the petitioner is that the order against which the revision was filed was never communicated to the petitioner. But the Land Revenue Commissioner as per Ext.P4 dismissed the revision stating that it is filed beyond 30 days and it is time barred. It is also observed by the Land Revenue Commissioner that the petitioner was aware of the order of the District Collector because he filed a suit before the Civil Court after knowing about the order passed by the District Collector. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. The short point raised by the petitioner is that unless the order impugned in Ext.P4 is communicated to the petitioner, the same cannot be dismissed for the reason that it is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. The short point raised by the petitioner is that unless the order impugned in Ext.P4 is communicated to the petitioner, the same cannot be dismissed for the reason that it is barred by limitation. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of this Court in P.C. Varghese v. R.T.A. Malappuram and others [AIR 1985 KERALA 44]. 4. The learned Government Pleader supported Ext.P4 order and submitted that the petitioner was aware of the order passed by the District Collector and that there is a long delay in filing the revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner, and hence there is nothing to interfere with Ext.P4. 5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Government Pleader. The limitation for filing an appeal and revision is dealt with in Section 17 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 (for short, 'Act 1957'). It will be better to extract Section 17 of Act 1957: “17. Limitation for appeal and revision. (1) No appeal or revision shall be preferred under Section 16 after the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the decision or order appealed against or sought to be revised was received by the appellant or applicant, as the case may be. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the appellate authority or the revising authority may admit an appeal or application for revision preferred after the period specified in that sub-section, if such authority is satisfied that the appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or application within that period. (3) The Collector shall not suo motu initiate proceedings to revise any decision or order after the expiry of one year from the date on which such decision has been made or order has been passed. (3) The Collector shall not suo motu initiate proceedings to revise any decision or order after the expiry of one year from the date on which such decision has been made or order has been passed. (4) The Government or the Commissioner of Land Revenue shall not suo motu initiate proceedings to revise any order after the expiry of one year from the date on which such order has been passed.” As per Section 17 (1), no appeal or revision shall be preferred under Section 16 after the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the decision or order appealed against or sought to be revised was received by the appellant or applicant as the case may be. Therefore the limitation starts from the date on which the applicant or appellant received the order against which the revision is filed. 6. The petitioner has a definite case that a copy of the order passed by the District Collector was not received. Even though the 1st respondent filed a statement, the specific contention of the petitioner that a copy of the order was not received by him was not denied. When there is a specific averment in the writ petition to the effect that a copy of the order was not received by the petitioner and the same is not disputed by the respondents, it is to be presumed that a copy of the order was not served to the petitioner. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the order impugned is to be set aside. 7. Moreover, as per Section 17 (2) of Act 1957, the appellate authority or the revising authority may admit an appeal or application for revision preferred after the period specified in subsection (1), if such authority is satisfied that the appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or application within that period. The petitioner submitted a reason for the delay in filing the revision before the revisional authority. It is the duty of the statutory authorities to consider the statutory appeals and revisions on merit as far as possible. There may be laches on the part of the parties. The minor laches or lapses from the parties are to be ignored because the ultimate aim of the statutory authorities should be to give justice to the parties. It is the duty of the statutory authorities to consider the statutory appeals and revisions on merit as far as possible. There may be laches on the part of the parties. The minor laches or lapses from the parties are to be ignored because the ultimate aim of the statutory authorities should be to give justice to the parties. No purpose will be served by dismissing a petition on the ground of delay because the same will only drag the matter further because normally no litigant will stop his litigation at that stage. If an order on merit is passed, that will end the lis atleast at that stage. Therefore while considering the delay condonation petitions, the statutory authorities should take a pragmatic approach. I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P4 is to be set aside and the delay in filing the revision is to be set aside. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner: 1. Ext.P4 is set aside. 2. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 revision on merit, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.