IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 441 of 2009()
1. SURESH, S/O.ERANEZHETH PADINJATTIYIL
... Petitioner
2. VENUGOPALAN, S/O.THAZHATHUPARA UNNERI,
Vs
1. RAMACHANDRAN EMBRANTHIRI,
... Respondent
2. HARIPRASAD, S/O.LATE THACHUNNI NAIR,
3. SREEKUMAR, S/O.LATE RAMA KRISHNA PILLAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.MAT.PAI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :26/08/2009
O R D E R
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.R.P.No.441 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 26th August, 2009
ORDER
The revision is directed against the order dated 25.3.2009 in AA
No.48 of 2004 by the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur. Petitioners
preferred an appeal against an order passed by the Land Tribunal
issuing purchase certificate in respect of 3.96 acres of land in favour of
the first respondent and his mother recognising their status as tenants
over the above property. Assignment of the jenmom right over the
property in favour of the above said tenants was passed by the Land
Tribunal by order dated 21.5.1976. After more than three decades, the
present petitioners filed an appeal challenging that order before the
Appellate Authority contending that the assignment of the land made
in favour of the above respondents by the Land Tribunal was vitiated
by fraud and portions of the land belong to a temple. Notice being
given, the respondents 1 to 3 appeared and filed statement. The
Appellate Authority, after examining the records, found that the
petitioners have no right over the properties and the appeal has been
filed as members of the public questioning an assignment made long
ago. The Appellate Authority holding that it has no right to entertain a
public interest litigation dismissed the appeal.
CRP 441/09 -2-
2. Notice being given, the respondents have entered appearance.
I heard the counsel on both sides. Perusing the order passed by the
Appellate Authority and taking note of the submissions made by the
counsel on both sides, I find the challenge raised against the order
passed by the Land Tribunal assigning the land involved in favour of
the first respondent and his mother, after such long lapse of time,
more than three decades, was prima facie not entertainable.
Admittedly, the petitioners have no interest over the land other than
as members of the public as interested in the welfare of a temple.
Portions of the land assigned under the orders of the Land Tribunal,
according to the learned counsel, is situate around a temple and, so
much so, the provisions of the Land Reforms Act is not applicable to
such land. The land assigned is appurtenant to a worship place is the
challenge raised to impeach the assignment order by the counsel
which deserves to be taken note of only for its rejection. There is
nothing in the Land Reforms Act barring assignment of a land enjoyed
by a tenant in his favour even if it is situate appurtenant to a worship
place like temple. The revision is devoid of any merit, and it is
dismissed.
srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE