IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 193 of 2009()
1. RAJENDRAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KARIMPANAKKAVU DEVASWOM
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :23/03/2010
O R D E R
P. BHAVADASAN, J
---------------------------
C.R.P.No.193 OF 2009
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010
O R D E R
Aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2008 in AA.30/03
before the Appellate Authority, Under the Kerala (Land
Reforms Act), the respondent come up in revision.
2. The petitioner claims that he had obtained a
purchase certificate dated 13.3.1991 in suo-moto
proceedings No.1141/78, 1142/78, 1143/1978 by order
dated 10.3.1986 of Land Tribunal, Thrissur. The petitioner
claims to be in absolute possession and enjoyment of 67
cents of land consisting of 251/2 cents of garden land in
survey No.1285/P 91/2 cents Nilam in survey No.1284/P and
32 cents of Nilam in Survey No.1286/1 and 2 of Kalloor
Vadakkummury Village. It is claimed that the purchase
certificate was issued in pursuance of compromise, validly
entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent
CRP No.193/09 2
who was the land lord then. It is claimed that first
respondent was represented by a lawyer. While the
petitioner was enjoying the land conveyed to him, it is
stated that the respondents began to interfere with his
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and that
constrained the petitioner to file O.S.148/03 before the
Munsiff Court, Chalakudy for an injunction. An interlocutory
application was filed for interim relief and that was granted.
Since the respondent in the I.A violated the order of
injunction, proceedings initiated for that purpose also.
3. The first respondent who is the present Manager,
filed a petition before the Appellate Authority against the
order of granting purchase certificate by the Land Tribunal,
Thrissur. There was a delay in filing the appeal, for which
application for condonation of delay was filed. Despite the
objection filed, without considering the objections from the
side of the petitioner, delay was condoned and appeal was
taken on file and later by the impugned order, the appeal
CRP No.193/09 3
was remanded and directed the Land Tribunal for fresh
consideration.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
pointed out that the main basis on which Appellate Authority
persuaded to remand the case was absence of compromise
deed among the record, based on which purchase certificate
said to be have been issued. It is pointed out that records
are now available and it contains the compromise entered
into between the parties and the matter requires
reconsideration.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
pointed that if it is being remanded for fresh consideration
by the Appellate Authority for the issued raised by the
appellant the objections raised by the respondent are also to
be considered.
6. The files made available before this court were
CRP No.193/09 4
perused. This court had opportunity to go through the file in
which compromise is seen recorded and said to have issued
in favour of the petitioner. It is contended before this court
by the respondent that the Manager who is said to have
signed the compromise deed has not signed and filed
compromise. The very compromise is in dispute. All these
are matters which are to be considered by the appellate
authority who is a fact finding body. In the light of the
above fact it is only proper that appellate authority
reconsider the issue.
7. In the result, this revision petition is allowed,
impugned order is set aside. The Appellate Authority is
directed to consider this matter afresh in the light of what
has been stated above after hearing both sides. The
Appellate Authority is directed to keep the file in safe
custody.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.
Sou.