IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 661 of 2001(E)
1. PULLAN KANNAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.SATHEESAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :11/06/2008
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
--------------------------------------------
C.R.P. NO. 661 OF 2001
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008
O R D E R
The applicant in S.M.P. No.7 of 1996 on the file of the Land
Tribunal, Kollam is the revision petitioner. The proceeding in question is
a suo motu proceeding initiated by the Land Tribunal on the basis of the
report of the authorised officer that the applicant is entitled for assignment
of right, title and interest over 18.16 acres of land in Survey no.446/4 of
East Kallada Village. The case of the applicant was that he occupied the
property as ‘vakkal pattom (oral lease) for Rs.200/- per annum from the
manager of Vadayattu Vikraman, effected improvements in the property,
constructed a homestead and has been in possession and enjoyment of the
property for the last 35 years. The applicant also tendered evidence stating
that he was paying pattom to the second respondent.
2. The first respondent is the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom
Board. It is the case of the Devaswom Board that the property having a
C.R.P. NO.661/2001 2
large extent of 8.87 acres including the property in question was taken
possession of by the Devaswom Board by Gazette notification dated
30.1.1989 with effect from 12.5.1988. According to the Devaswom Board,
the applicant was a trespasser and he constructed the homestead after
trespassing into the property. The second respondent supported the case of
the applicant and gave evidence to the effect that the property was
entrusted with the applicant in the year 1959 on lease for Rs.200/- per
annum. The applicant also examined one witness on his side. The Land
Tribunal examined the records, depositions and other documents in detail
and held that the land in question was under the ownership of Vadayattu
Vikraman and was sub leased to the applicant during the year 1959 by the
manager of the said Vadayattu Vikraman. The Land Tribunal also held
that the property is vested with the Government as on 1.1.1970. On the
basis of the finding entered, the Land Tribunal further held that the land in
question is under the possession and enjoyment of the applicant as a
cultivating tenant before 1.4.1964 and thus the applicant is entitled to
assignment of the said property.
3. In the appeal, A.A. No.282 of 1998, filed by the Devaswom
Board, the Appellate Authority (LR), Thiruvananthapuram took the view
that the documents, Exts.A1 to A5, produced by the applicant relate to
C.R.P. NO.661/2001 3
the period since 1992 and, therefore, insufficient to conclude that the
applicant was in possession of the property for the past 38 years as claimed
by him. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the
Devaswom Board stating that the applicant/ first respondent therein has no
manner of right as a cultivating tenant in respect of the property in
question.
4. The Appellate Authority evidently had not discussed the oral
evidence adduced by the parties nor the report of the authorised officer
marked as Ext.C1. The Land Tribunal entered the finding based on the
report of the authorised officer and the oral evidence adduced by the
parties. I find that the Appellate Authority entered the finding without
examining the materials on record. In the circumstances, I am of the view
that the matter requires reconsideration by the Appellate Authority. The
matter is, therefore, remitted to the Appellate Authority for
reconsideration. The Appellate Authority shall give notice to the parties
and give them an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence, if any, to
substantiate their case. Learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of
the revision petitioner brought to my notice the undertaking recorded by
this Court that the revision petitioner will not cut and remove the trees
standing in the property or commit any waste in the property. The
C.R.P. NO.661/2001 4
undertaking recorded in C.M.P. No.2108 of 2002 shall continue till the
disposal of the appeal. The Appellate Authority shall dispose of the
matter within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the
parties.
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. There will be
no order as to costs.
(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)
sp/
C.R.P. NO.661/2001 5
HAURN-UL-RASHID, J.
C.R.P. NO. 661/2001
O R D E R
11th June, 2008
