Under challenge is the order dated 25.06.2013 of the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur whereby the said authority dismissed the delay condonation petitions filed by the petitioner and consequently the appeals also. 2. The facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of the revision petitions are as follows:
The 1st respondent in the petitions filed O.A.No.16/2004 and O.A.No.15/2004 respectively before the Land Tribunal, Tirur under Section 80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. That petitions were allowed. The Vakhafath Samrakshana Committee of the Mosque claiming that the property in question belonged to the Mosque sought to file appeals. But the appeals were filed out of time and therefore, petitions for condonation of delay were also filed. In the delay condonation petitions, it was specifically stated that the Mosque was earlier represented by one Puthur Bappu Haji and he was completely ill for about three years and he died on 08.10.2006. Because of his ill health, he was unable to take such steps as are necessary in the matter and no other member of the Committee was aware of the pendency of the proceedings. It was also pointed out that the Mosque had never received notice. The present incumbent therefore filed affidavits pointing out the reasons for the delay. It is pointed out that the property in question is part of mosque property. It is also pointed out that unless the appeals are heard on merits, irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the Mosque.
3. The Appellate Authority, mainly on the ground that the other members of the Committee were not aware of the proceedings could not be accepted, chose to reject the applications for condonation of delay and consequently the appeals also.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that at any rate the Appellate Authority should not have dismissed the petitions and the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to agitate the case before the Appellate Authority. The definite contention was that the property was a part of mosque property and it is exempted from the provisions of law. It is also pointed out that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents by having the appeals heard on merits.
5. There seems to be considerable force in the above submission. In the affidavit in support of the petitions to condone delay, the reason for the delay was explained. There is nothing to show that there was any willful latches or negligence on the part of the Mosque Committee in not filing the appeals within the stipulated time. It is probable that the earlier Secretary who was suffering from ill health was not in a position to take steps in the matter and it is also probable that the other members of the Committee were not aware of the proceedings. Anyhow no harm is caused in having the appeals heard on merits especially when the nature of the contention is that the property assigned is part of mosque property.
In the result, these revisions petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The delay stands condoned and the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur is directed to take the appeals on file and dispose of them in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months of appearance of parties before it. The parties shall appear before the appellate authority on 19.12.2014.
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp // True Copy // P.A. to Judge.