IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 1404 of 1999(I)
1. KELOTH PUTHIYAPURAYIL DEVAKI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.P.KUNHU KRISHNAN NAIR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.MANHU
For Respondent :SRI.N.J.JOHNSON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
Dated :18/10/2007
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN, J.
---------------------------
C.R.P.No.1404 OF 1999
----------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of October, 2007
O R D E R
Petitioners are appellants in A.A.No.225/90 on the file of the
Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur and also respondents in O.A.No.3/1988
on the file of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Tribunal, Palakkad. The lst
respondent herein applied for resumption under Section 13 of the Kerala
Land Reforms Act of an extent of 1 acre 10 cents in Sy.No.183/4 of
Kannapuram Village in Kannur Taluk. Originally, this application was
dismissed by the Land Tribunal. The same was confirmed in appeal. But
C.R.P.No.146/82 filed before this Court was allowed remanding the matter
to the Land Tribunal for consideration of the specific questions namely, (1)
whether the tenancy in question was created within three months prior to
21/11/41 or during the period from 21/11/41 to 20/11/64 and if so (2)
whether the petitioners possessed land below the ceiling limit. The scope
and ambit of the remand order being limited to those questions no other
question arises for consideration unless it be a case where such new
question arose out of any new provisions introduced subsequent to the
-2-
C.R.P.No.1404/2007
remand order passed by this Court. Pursuant to the remand order passed
by this Court, the Tribunal found both the questions in favour of the
applicant and that tenancy was created during the period from 21/11/41 to
20/11/64. It is also found that the applicant possessed land below the
ceiling limit. That was challenged by the petitioners before the Appellate
Authority. The Appellate Authority, though re-appreciating the evidence
on record, came to the same conclusion and confirmed the order of the
Tribunal. It is the said order that is impugned in this revision.
2. The learned counsel, Sri M.A.Manhu, appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the application is not maintainable. According to him,
the lst respondent is only an intermediary and the applicant was a tenant
under the Kovilakam, who sub leased it to the predecessor of the
petitioners and as such he is not a landlord within the meaning of the
defnition of the term. The petitioners cannot raise this contention at this
stage nor does it arise for consideration. Earlier when the application was
allowed and ultimately this Court remanded the matter to consider the
specific points alone, the matter is not at large. Hence, both the Land
Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority are correct in their view that
this contention cannot be raised at the instance of the petitioners herein, in
view of the remand order passed by this Court limiting to the two
-3-
C.R.P.No.1404/2007
questions. Further even the definition of the term “landlord” under
Section 2(29) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act does not support the
contention of the petitioners herein. As per Section 2(29), “landlord”
means a person under whom a tenant holds and includes a landowner.
There is no dispute that the predecessor in interest was holding under the
applicants. Going by the definition as far as the tenant is concerned, the
applicant is the immediate landlord.
3. The next contention advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the respondent is not a member of the Armed Force to
invoke the benefit of Section 30. The Appellate Authority entered a
specific finding based on the document produced in the case that
respondent was a member of Armed Force from 21/11/41 to 20/11/64 and
discharged from Military Service subsequently. This is a finding of fact
and no materials are placed to show that the finding is perverse. Hence
this contention is also rejected.
In the result, the C.R.P. is devoid of any merits. It is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
qSd/-
P.R.RAMAN,
Judge.
kcv.