BEERAMMADA HAMZA S/O LATE ACHAMADA CHETTA ALIKUTTY Vs. ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP KAVARATHI ISLAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROCEEDINGS were initiated before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Amini Island for issue of patta in respect of 130 sq. meters of land in survey no. 318/18 along with other properties numbered as R.P.No. 1050. In that proceedings, by Ext.P1 order dated 22.3.1999, a patta was issued to the petitioner in respect of that property. Long thereafter, in 2003, respondents 3 and 4 herein filed a revision petition against Ext.P1 order, under Regulation 80 of the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulation, 1965. By Ext.P2 order dated 6.3.2003, that revision petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The 3rd respondent approached the Taluk Legal Services Authority, Amini, in respect of the dispute between him and the petitioner, in 2004. The Taluk Legal Services Authority did not proceed with the same. Respondents 3 and 4 approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 34970 of 2005 seeking police protection for plucking coconut from the property. By Ext.P4 judgment, a Division Bench of this Court relegated respondents 3 and 4 to other remedies insofar as disputed questions of facts, which cannot be decided in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are involved. Thereafter, respondents 3 and 4 filed an appeal under Regulation 78(1)(a) of the above said Regulations, which was dismissed by Ext.P5 order dated 6.5.2006 as barred by limitation. Respondents 3 and 4 filed a second appeal under Regulation 78(1)()b). The 1st respondent- administrator passed Ext.P7 order, in which he purported to condone the delay in filing the first appeal and remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh disposal, after hearing both parties. Ext.P7 order is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has no power to condone the delay in filing the first appeal by respondents 3 and 4, that too, without an application for condonation of delay. He further points out that in Regulation 79 of the Regulations, a period of 30 days is prescribed for filing appeal and there is no provision for condoning delay in filing the appeal. It is submitted that for the purpose of calculating limitation, only the time required to obtain the copies of the order appealed against, can be excluded. It is also submitted that under Regulation 120 of the Regulations, the monsoon period meaning the period beginning on the 1st of May and 15th of September can also be excluded. Ext.P1 order is dated 22.3.1999 and the appeal was filed only in 2005, seven years after Ext.P1 order. THErefore, the appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation, is the contention raised. It is submitted that the administrator being a creature of the statute and his powers of appeal emanates from the Regulations, he cannot travel beyond the Regulations in exercising powers of appeal conferred on him by the Regulations themselves. THE administrator does not have any suo motu power to condone delay in filing appeal. It is also submitted that it is settled law that for such appeals, the Limitation Act cannot be invoked for condoning delay also. THE petitioner relies on the decisions of Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board v. Government of Kerala, 2001(1) KLT 608, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval, 2005(4) KLT 947, District Executive Officer v. Abel, 2006(2) KLT 758 and Thomas Thomas v. Kottayam Municipality, 2008(3) KLT 964 in support of his contentions. THE petitioner seeks the following relief:

(3.) IT is not disputed before me that Ext.P1 patta was issued under the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulation, 1965. Ext.P1 order has been passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer. Regulation 78 of the Regulations provides thus: