This Original Petition was originally filed by one Mullacherry Parvathyamma and one Puducherry Kunhikannan Nair, petitioners 1 and 2, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibits P11 and P13 orders and also a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent to reconsider the assignment of land in favour of the 5th respondent, with an opportunity for hearing to them. During the pendency of this Original Petition, petitioners 1 and 2 died and their legal heirs were impleaded as supplemental petitioners 3 to 7 and 8 to 12 respectively. 2. The averments in the Original Petition is that the 1st petitioner is in possession of 90 cents of land in re-survey No.121/1 of Perumbala Village and the 2nd petitioner is in possession of 36 cents of land in re-surey No.121/1(part) of Perumbala Village. The aforesaid two plots of land are in the possession of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest for the last 50 years. The 5th respondent is in possession of 62 cents of land in re-survey No.121/1 of the very same Village. When petitioners 1 and 2 moved for assignment of the aforesaid 90 and 36 cents of Government land in their favour, a Village man came to measure the property. He told petitioners 1 and 2 that parts of property in their possession is seen assigned in favour of the 5th respondent in the year 1967. Then, petitioners 1 and 2 came to know that portion of their land has already been assigned in favour of the 5th respondent. In such circumstances, they filed Exhibits P3 and P4 appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kasaragod, the 3rd respondent herein, under Rule 21(1) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, challenging the assignment of land in favour of the 5th respondent.
3. According to the petitioners, Exhibits P3 and P4 appeals were supported by Exhibits P1 and P2 applications for condonation of delay. The 3rd respondent by Exhibit P5 order allowed the appeals and remanded back the matter to the Tahsildar, Kasaragod, the 4th respondent herein, for fresh disposal. The said order was challenged by the 5th respondent in a revision filed before the erstwhile Board of Revenue, the 2nd respondent herein, under Rule 21(8) of the said Rules. But the 2nd respondent dismissed the said revision petition by Exhibit P6. Challenging Exhibit P6, the 5th respondent approached this Court in O.P.No.3752/1985 and this Court in Exhibit P7 judgment observed that, there is nothing on record to show whether the appellate authority in fact had condoned the delay before it entertained the appeals. Therefore, this Court by Exhibit P7 judgment allowed the said Original Petition, setting aside Exhibit P6 order of the 2nd respondent. In the light of the direction contained in Exhibit P7 judgment, the 2nd respondent considered the matter afresh and dismissed the revision by Exhibit P8.
4. Exhibit P8 order of the 2nd respondent was under challenge in O.P.No.929/89 filed by the petitioner and this Court by Exhibit P9 judgment allowed the said Original Petition, holding that, the action of the 2nd respondent in taking upon itself the jurisdiction of the appellate authority to condone the delay and to treat the appeals filed by petitioners 1 and 2 as maintainable was not in accordance with law. This Court in Exhibit P9 judgment, set aside Exhibit P8 order of the 2nd respondent and directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the revision petition filed by the 5th respondent in accordance with law and in the light of the observations in Exhibits P7 and P9 judgments. Against Exhibit P9 judgment, petitioners 1 and 2 along with another filed Writ Appeal No.1304/1993 and by Exhibit P10 judgment, the same ended in dismissal.
5. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent reconsidered the revision petition filed by the 5th respondent and allowed the same by Exhibit P11 order, setting aside Exhibit P5 order passed by the 3rd respondent, holding that the 3rd respondent should not have entertained the appeals after such a long lapse of delay. The said order was challenged by way of filing a revision Rule 21(9) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules and Exhibit P12 is the revision petition filed before the Government. At the time of personal hearing, Exhibit P12 (a) argument note was submitted on behalf of petitioners 1 and 2. But, the Government by Exhibit P13 dismissed the said revision petition and it is challenging Exhibits P11 and P13 orders, petitioners 1 and 2 filed this Original Petition.
6. While admitting the Original Petition, this Court by order dated 28.8.1997 ordered that the petitioners 1 and 2 shall not dispose of the land in question for a period of one month, which order was extended until further orders on 24.10.1997.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent contending, inter alia, that there is absolutely no illegality in Exhibits P11 and P13 orders and hence no interference of this Court is called for. The further contentions are as follows; It is true that the petitioners have filed appeal petition along with delay condonation petition; Even though the appeal petitioner filed application for condonation of delay before the Revenue Divisional Officer, there is no specific finding of the appellate authority in this matter; The delay of 13 years in filing the appeal is not justifiable; etc. Therefore, according to the 1st respondent the Original Petition is liable to be dismissed. The 5th respondent has not chosen to file any counter affidavit.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.
9. Petitioners 1 and 2 filed Exhibits P3 and P4 appeals before the 3rd respondent, under Rule 21(1) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, aggrieved by the assignment of land in favour of the 5th respondent. Rule 21 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 deals with appeal and revision. As per Sub-rule (1) of Rule 21, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer against an order passed by the Tahsildar or any other Officer not above the rank of a Tahsildar authorised by the Government under Rule 23A, to the District Collector against an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer or an officer of the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer authorised by the Government under Rule 23A and to the Board of Revenue against an order passed by the District Collector.
10. As per Sub-rule (3) of Rule 21, appeals shall be presented within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order by the aggrieved party. As per Sub-rule (4) of Rule 21, the appellate authority may, in his or its discretion, admit an appeal, not submitted within time, if sufficient grounds exist for condoning the delay. Therefore, going by sub-rule (4) of Rule 21, if an appeal under Rule 21(1) is filed beyond the time limit prescribed in Rule 21(3), the appeal should be accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. If sufficient grounds are made out in the said application for condonation of delay to the satisfaction of the appellate authority, the said authority may in its discretion admit such an appeal. Therefore, going by Rule 21 (4), it is for the appellate authority to decide as to whether sufficient grounds exist for condonation of delay, in order to entertain an appeal filed beyond the time limit prescribed in Rule 21(3), which discretion has to be exercised by the appellate authority itself, on being satisfied that sufficient grounds are made out in the application for condonation of delay. Similarly, if an appeal filed beyond the time limit is not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority has no option other than to dismiss the same on the ground of delay.
11. As born out from Exhibit P5 order of the 3rd respondent, while remanding the matter for fresh disposal by the 4th respondent, the appellate authority failed to pass orders on Exhibits P1 and P2 applications for condonation of delay in filing Exhibits P3 and P4 appeals. Though, Exhibit P5 order was challenged by way of a revision filed before the 2nd respondent, the same ended in dismissal by Exhibit P6 order. Challenging the said order, the 5th respondent filed O.P.No.3752/1995 and this Court by Exhibit P7 judgment observed that, there is nothing on record to show as to whether the appellate authority in fact had condoned the delay before it entertained the appeals. Without condonation of delay, the appellate authority should not have entertained the appeals and considered the complaints of petitioners 1 and 2. This aspect of the case, though highlighted in the revision petition filed by the 5th respondent, has not been considered by the 2nd respondent in its order. Therefore, this Court in Exhibit P7 judgment set aside Exhibit P6 order and directed the 2nd respondent to take the revision on file and dispose of the same in the light of the observations contained in the judgment.
12. Pursuant to the said direction, the 2nd respondent by Exhibit P8 dismissed the revision petition, which was again challenged by the 5th respondent by filing O.P.No.929/1989. The said Original Petition was allowed by Exhibit P9 judgment and in the said judgment, this Court observed that, the appellate authority as per Clause (4) of Rule 21 has the discretion to admit an appeal submitted after the expiry of the prescribed period of 30 days. This could have been done only after petitioners 1 and 2 had prayed for condonation of delay. Even in Exhibit P8, the 2nd respondent has no case that such applications were filed by petitioners 1 and 2. In the absence of such applications for condonation of delay, the appellate authority could not have entertained the appeals. In such a situation the appellate authority could not have passed order like Exhibit P5. The action of the 2nd respondent in taking upon itself the jurisdiction of the appellate authority to condone the delay and to treat Exhibits P3 and P4 appeals filed by petitioners 1 and 2 as maintainable was not in accordance with law. In the result, this Court in Exhibit P9 judgment set aside Exhibit P8 order and directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the revision petition filed by the 5th respondent in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in Exhibits P7 and P9 judgments.
13. Exhibit P9 judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Exhibit P10 judgment. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court observed that, in case no appeal was filed within the time limit stipulated, petitioners 1 and 2 should have got the delay condoned by making a proper request before the appellate authority in that behalf. It is for the appellate authority to condone the delay and entertain the appeal and the revisional authority committed a grave error in taking upon itself the task of condoning the delay. No error has therefore been committed by the learned Single judge in setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent and directing the said respondent to consider the matter afresh in the light of the observations contained in the judgment.
14. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent reconsidered the revision petition and allowed the same by Exhibit P11 order. The operative portion of Exhibit P11 reads thus:
“The basic question the maintainability of an appeal preferred after the prescribed time is over has been considered by the Honourable High Court twice. When the Honourable High Court raised this first, Board of Revenue, sad to say, made a mistake by choosing to condone the delay at its level thus papering over a legal crack. Now the Honourable High Curt has rightly struck it down. I have no hesitation to say that the appeal should not have been entertained at all by the Revenue Divisional Officer after such a long lapse of time. The revision petition is allowed.”
Challenging Exhibit P11 order passed by the 2nd respondent, petitioners 1 and 2 filed Exhibit P12 revision before the Government, the 1st respondent herein, under Rule 21(9) and the Government by Exhibit P13 dismissed the revision and the operative portion of the said order reads thus:
“The counsel for the revision petitioners 2 and 3 and the counsel for the respondent were heard. The order of assignment is dated 16.6.1967. Appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 30.8.1980. The Revenue Divisional Officer's file No.AA.104/80 shows that an application for condonation of delay was filed along with the appeal petition. The argument of the revision petitioner is that admission of the appeal implies condonation of delay. There is no specific finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer in this matter. The respondent points out that the revision petitioners had information about the assignment at the time of assignment itself, since certain other pieces of land were assigned to them simultaneously. Therefore, the delay of more than 13 years in filing the appeal is not justifiable according to the respondent. The Board of Revenue has rightly held that the appeal should not have entertained at all. The Government agrees with the finding of the Board. The revision petition is dismissed.”
Exhibits P11 and P13 orders are under challenge in this Original Petition.
15. A perusal of Exhibit P11 order of shows that, the 2nd respondent concluded in the said order that, the 3rd respondent should not have entertained Exhibits P3 and P4 appeals at all after such a long lapse of time. The said finding of the 3rd respondent is confirmed by the 1st respondent in Exhibit P13 order. Now, as seen Exhibit P13 order, the relevant portion of which has already been extracted in the forgoing paragraph of this judgment, Exhibits P3 and P4 appeals filed by petitioners 1 and 2 before the 3rd respondent were accompanied by applications for condonation of delay and the same is available in File No.AA 104/80 of the 3rd respondent. Moreover, in page 4 of the counter affidavit filed by on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is admitted as follows; “It is true that the petitioners have filed appeal petition along with delay condonation petition”. The contention in page 5 of the said counter affidavit is as follows; “Even though the appeal petitioner filed application for condonation of delay before the Revenue Divisional Officer, there is no specific finding of the appellate authority in this matter”.
16. Going by Rule 21(4), it is for the appellate authority to decide as to whether sufficient grounds exist for condonation of delay, in order to entertain an appeal filed beyond the time limit prescribed in Rule 21(3), which discretion has to be exercised by the appellate authority itself, on being satisfied that sufficient grounds are made out in the application for condonation of delay. In Exhibits P7 and P9 judgments, this Court condemned the action of the 2nd respondent revisional authority in taking upon itself the jurisdiction of the appellate authority to condone the delay and to treat Exhibits P4 and P5 appeals filed by petitioners 1 and 2 as maintainable. Exhibit P9 judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Exhibit P10 judgment, holding that, it is for the appellate authority to condone the delay and entertain the appeal and the revisional authority committed a grave error in taking upon itself the task of condoning the delay.
17. Exhibit P11 order passed by the 2nd respondent is silent on the aspect whether Exhibits P1 and P2 delay condonation applications were filed along with Exhibits P3 and P4 appeals. However, the 1st respondent in Exhibit P13 order found that, the appeals filed on 30.8.1980 were supported by delay condonation petitions and the same is available in File No.AA 104/80 of the 3rd respondent. Once it is found that, Exhibits P3 and P4 appeals filed by petitioners 1 and 2 are supported by Exhibits P1 and P2 applications for condonation of delay, the proper course that should have been adopted by the 1st respondent is to remand the matter to the 3rd respondent appellate authority, with a specific direction to consider Exhibits P1 and P2 applications and take a decision as to whether Exhibits P3 and P4 appeals filed beyond the time limit prescribed in Rule 21(3) are to be admitted or not. Therefore, while issuing Exhibits P11 and P13 orders, the 1st and 2nd respondents have exceeded their jurisdiction under the Rules and passed the said order, absolutely without any authority of law. Moreover, the reasoning in Exhibits P11 and P13 orders are highly perverse and patently illegal. Hence, the said orders are liable to be interfered with by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India.
18. In the result, Exhibit P11 and P13 orders are set aside and this Original Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibits P1 and P2 applications for condonation of delay filed by petitioners 1 and 2 and take a decision as to whether there are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay and for admitting Exhibits P3 and P4 appeals filed beyond the time limit prescribed in Rule 21(3). The 3rd respondent shall take a decision in this regard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioners and the 5th respondent.
19. Needless to say, in case the delay condonation applications are allowed and Exhibits P3 and P4 appeals are admitted on file, the 3rd respondent shall dispose of those appeals, as expeditiously as possible, after hearing all affected parties.
20. It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the delay condonation applications or he appeals and all contentions raised by both sides are left open, which contentions shall be considered and dealt with by the 3rd respondent appellate authority, strictly in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE