IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1049 of 2010(O)
1. KAMALA, W/O.N.R.SURENDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.V.VALSAMMA, W/O.BAHULEYAN,
... Respondent
2. SYAMALATHA, W/O.SUKUMARAN,
3. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.SYAMALATHA,
4. SIVAJI, S/O.SYAMALATHA,
5. GEETHA, D/O.SYAMALATHA,
6. SHAJI,
For Petitioner :SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :18/01/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.1049 OF 2010
--------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of January 2010
----------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs.
i) Call for the records pertaining to this case leading to
Ext.P3 and quash the same issuing a Writ of Certiorari.
ii) Call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quash
Ext.P3 and issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other
appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the Additional
Munsiff Court, Cherthala to hear the matter afresh in
accordance with law after considering the legal aspects put
before it within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
iii) Pass such other orders or directions that this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances.
2. Petitioner is the 5th defendant in O.S No. 852 of 2006
on the file of Additional Munsiff Court, Cherthala. Suit is for
declaration, recovery of possession and injunction, and the
1st respondent is the plaintiff. Resisting the suit claim, the
petitioner/5th defendant in her written statement has
contended that she is entitled to the benefits under Section
106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and a reference be
W.P.(C).No. 1049 OF 2010 Page numbers
made to Land Tribunal for consideration of her claim
thereunder. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides
relying on “Govinda Panicker v Sreedhara Panicker”
(2001(1) KLT 631) held that the claim raised by the
petitioner under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act
need not be referred to the Land Tribunal as it can be
considered with other issues by the court itself. Challenge is
raised against that order invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of
the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to
the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed
with . This court has held in “Govinda Panicker v Sreedhara
Panicker”(2001(1) KLT 631) a reference to the Land Tribunal
as mandated under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act emerge for consideration only where rights of a
tenant or a kudikidappukaran arise for consideration. The
rights of a tenant requiring reference arise only where it is
shown that the person who seeks such reference has the
W.P.(C).No. 1049 OF 2010 Page numbers
status of a cultivating tenant as defined under Section 2(57)
and Section 13 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. So far as a
claim under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is
concerned, he is entitled only to a protection from eviction
subject to liability to pay rent on satisfaction of the
conditions prescribed under that Section entitling such
protection from eviction. Such a person seeking protection
from eviction by virtue of Section 106 of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act cannot claim the status of a cultivating tenant
entitled to fixity of tenure. It was in that backdrop, this court
held that in adjudication of a claim raised under Section 106
of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, no reference to the Land
Tribunal is called for and such claim can be considered by
the civil court. Challenge raised against the impugned order
is found to be meritless. Writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv