IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 2473 of 2001()
1. J. GEORGE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :05/01/2010
O R D E R
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.R.P .No.2473 OF 2001
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition filed by the revision petitioner under
Section 103 of Kerala Land Reforms Act challenging the order of the
Land Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in S.M.P.No.35/1996 dated January 19,
1998 which is confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority ( Land
Reforms), Thiruvananthapuram in A.A.No.246/1998 dated March 30,
2001.
2. A suo motu proceeding was initiated under Section 72 of
Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 as amended by Act 35 of 1969, on
receipt of the information to the effect that right, title and interest of an
extent of 10 cents of land in Sy.No.871/1-2 of Kulathummal Village
have vested in Government and that the second respondent/applicant is
entitled to fixity of tenure over the holding. The authorised officer i.e.
the Revenue Inspector conducted site inspection and filed a report to
the effect that the properties are in the possession of the revision
second respondent/applicant as per Ottiyumkuzhikanam deed
CRP.No.2473/01 Page numbers
No.1700/1967.
3. The revision petitioner who is the second respondent in the
S.M. proceedings contended that 73 cents including the disputed
property originally belonged to the grandfather of the revision
petitioner and his sister, the revision third respondent and that he gifted
the properties to them and that they orally partitioned those properties
and that the disputed 10 cents of land forms part of the properties set
apart to revision third respondent who is the wife of the revision
second respondent, the applicant.
4. As the revision second respondent, the applicant was found
to be in possession and enjoyment of the disputed property, the Land
Tribunal found that he has tenancy right over the property and that he
is entitled to get fixity of tenure and ordered to issue purchase
certificate in his favour.
5. The revision petitioner filed an appeal and the Appellate
Authority by order dated March 30, 2001 in A.A.No.246/1998
confirmed the said order of the Land Tribunal. The revision petitioner
has now come up in revision challenging the said order.
6. The main contention raised by the revision petitioner is that
CRP.No.2473/01 Page numbers
the property comprised in 73 cents including the disputed 10 cents
were partitioned between himself and his sister, the revision third
respondent who is the wife of the original applicant i.e. the revision
second respondent and that therefore purchase certificate should not be
issued to the revision second respondent. There is no merit in the
above contention. No evidence was adduced by the revision petitioner
before the Land Tribunal to show that any such oral partition was
effected. The question whether any such partition was effected has to
be decided in a separate suit and not in the present proceedings. The
Land Tribunal has found that the revision second respondent is in
possession of the properties from 1967 onwards under
Ottiyumkuzhikanam deed No.1700/1967 produced by him. That being
so, the revision second respondent is entitled to fixity of tenure over the
holding. Therefore, I confirm the impugned order of the Land Tribunal
issuing purchase certificate in favour of the applicant in the S.M.
proceedings which is confirmed in appeal.
In the result, I find the revision petition is devoid of any merit
and the same is hereby dismissed.
P.Q.BARKATH ALI
sv JUDGE
CRP.No.2473/01 Page numbers
sv.