IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 298 of 2002()
1. VATTIYOORKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, SREEVILAS,
... Respondent
2. HELEN, D/O. GRACY, FLOWER HOUSE,
3. PAUL CHRISTY, DO. DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.G.S. RAGHUNATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :14/08/2007
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
-----------------------------
C.R.P.No.298 OF 2002 A
-----------------------------
Dated this the 14th August, 2007.
O R D E R
The revision petition is preferred against the order of
the appellate authority, Thiruvananthapuram in A.A.152/98.
The said appeal was preferred against the order of the Land
Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in SM 7/94. The revision
petitioner is the Vattiyoorkavu Grama Panchayat. Its
grievance is that it has filed an impleading application
and the Tribunal as well as the appellate authority
erroneously proceeded to decide the matter without
impleading the panchayat. A perusal of the appellate
authority’s order would show that the claim of the
panchayat is to the effect that the property intended to be
assigned in favour of the respondent in the appeal belonged
to the panchayat. Learned counsel for the revision
petitioner submits that there was a surrender of the
property by the owner to the panchayat and therefore there
was no right for anybody to get assignment of the property
under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. When
the panchayat has raised such a contention the Tribunal
should have allowed the impleadment and permitted the
panchayat to continue the proceedings and substantiate its
contentions. It is really relevant for the determination
C.R.P. 298/02 2
of the issue before the Tribunal for the reason that
suppose the person to whom the property to be assigned has
no right over the property on the date of the assignment or
earlier, it may not be justifiable on the part of the land
tribunal to give a certificate of purchase in favour of
that person. No prejudice, or injury would be caused to
any of the parties by impleadment of the panchayat and
attempting to hear its case on merits. Therefore, I find
the orders of the court below suffers from infirmity and
therefore they are liable to be set aside. In the result
the C.R.P is allowed and the order of the land tribunal as
well as the appellate authority is set aside and a
direction is given to the land tribunal concerned to hear
the party viz., the revision petitioner and dispose of the
matter in accordance with law. In order to enable the
revision petitioner to have a say on this case the
impleadment petition also stands allowed. If the SM
petitioner, suo motu petitioner or the respondent wants to
file any objection regarding the contention of the
panchayat they may be also permitted to adduce evidence
and produce documents in support of their respective
contentions and the matter be disposed of in accordance
with law, after hearing all the parties. Parties are
directed to appear before the court below and in case of
C.R.P. 298/02 3
non-appearance of any of the parties the Tribunal shall
give notice to them at the expense of the panchayat and
then proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law.
M.N.KRISHNAN
Judge
jj