IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 2600 of 1996(C)
1. BETHUR NARAYANANI @ AMMALU AMMA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KAMALON KUNHAMBU NAIR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :18/07/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P. No. 2600 OF 1996
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2007
O R D E R
The B party respondent in SM proceedings No. 1205/77 on the
file of Land Tribunal, Kasaragode is aggrieved by the order of the Land
Reforms Appellate Authority passed in AA No.134/91 filed by the first
respondent A party setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal
dismissing the case and directing issuance of purchase certificate to the
1st respondent appellant. The SM proceedings were initiated by the 1st
respondent for purchase of 3.50 acres of land in RSNo.21/7 of Kuttikola
Village. According to the 1st respondent, he obtained the property 14
years prior to the filing of the petition and has been in possession and
enjoyment ever since. He claimed that he has been paying basic tax
since 1973 and had effected improvements. He claimed that Rs.15/-
per year is being paid to the petitioner as rent for which no receipts were
issued. The petitioner as B party contended that the 1st respondent
does not have possession or enjoyment of the SM property. It was
contended that the 1st respondent is not a cultivating tenant at all and
that there was no privity of contract between the 1st respondent and him.
According to the petitioner, she is in direct possession of the disputed
property ever since allotment under an award, partition deed
CRP No. 2600 OF 1996
2
No.1565/1956. It was pointed out that she had no exclusive right in
1952, the date of alleged lease and at that time the property belonged to
the Tharavadu. The evidence before the Land Tribunal consisted of
Exts.A1 to A9 tax receipts produced by the 1st respondent A party on the
petitioners by B1 to B7 were produced. Exts.C1 to C6 were the reports
submitted by the Special Revenue Officer. On the side of the 1st
respondent three witnesses 1 to 3, were examined while on the side of
the petitioner RW1 and 2, were examined. The Tribunal found on the
basis of PW1’s evidence that the 1st respondent is mentally sick and
therefore could not have initiated proceedings. It was also found that
Exts.A1 to A9 are in respect of other properties and that claim of
tenancy is false. The Appellate Authority permitted the 1st respondent to
produce documents after the arguments were over and proceeded to
allow the appeal relying on those documents. The petitioner contends
that the reception of these documents by the Appellate Authority was
improper. No opportunity had been given to the petitioner for
contradicting those documents.
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan,
learned counsel for the petitioner who addressed me very strenuously
on the various grounds raised in the Writ Petition. It appears to me that
CRP No. 2600 OF 1996
3
the grievance of the petitioner that she was deprived of an opportunity
to challenge Exts.A1 to A18 which was produced before the Appellate
Authority only has some genuineness. It is also seen that the Appellate
Authority has not entered clear findings regarding the findings of the
Land Tribunal that the documents produced before the Tribunal does
not pertain to the SM property. It is possible that those documents
pertain to the property covered by the Marupat. A reading of the
Appellate Authority’s order will show that the said Authority was very
much displeased by the conduct of the petitioner in not getting herself
examined or in getting any immediate members of the family examined
as witnesses. But then it should have been noticed that concededly the
appellant before the Appellant Authority was a mentally ill person and
therefore the appeal itself was incompetent.
3. I set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remand the
matter back to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal will conduct a
fresh enquiry in which PW1 will be recalled so that the opportunity will
be afforded to the petitioner for cross examining PW1 with reference to
the fresh documents which were produced before the Appellate
Authority. The Tribunal will give an opportunity to both sides to produce
whatever further documents necessary for them for substantiating their
CRP No. 2600 OF 1996
4
rival claims. Fresh decision as directed above will be taken by the
Tribunal at the earliest and at any rate within four months of receiving
copy of this order.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed by way of remand.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt
CRP No. 2600 OF 1996
5