IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 940 of 2005() --------------------- AA.135/1992 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR SM.189/1988 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT B. PARTY NO.2. ---------------------------------------------- NARAYANA MANIYANI, S/O.KUNHAMBU MANIYANI, RESIDING AT BALEKKAM IN KARADKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.MULLERIA. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/PETITIONER B PARTY NO.1 AND STATE: --------------------- 1. GOPI, W/O.LATE KELU, MANIYANI, RESIDING AT HOSAGADDE HOUSE, ADOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.ORDOOR. 2. KUNHIRAMAN MANIYANI, S/O.KORAGA MANIYANI, RESIDING AT PALAMARUVA HOUSE, ADOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.URDOOR. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD FOR R1 SMT.O.K.SANTHA FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.GEETHA C. NAIR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.2692/05 IN CRP.NO.940/05 DISMISSED. 9.2.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.940 OF 2005 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010 O R D E R Concurrent decisions rendered by the Land Tribunal and also the appellate authority holding that the 1st respondent is a cultivating tenant entitled to have the issue of a purchase certificate over 0.74 acres comprised in R.Sy.No.518/5 and 0.86 acres in R.Sy.No.518/8A of Adoor Village in Kasaragod is challenged in the revision. 2. The Land Tribunal-I, Kasaragod initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 72(c) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in respect of the above properties showing the 1st respondent as the 'A' party tenant in possession and enjoyment and the 2nd respondent as the 'B' party, the landlord of the properties. A report from the Revenue Inspector was also collected which showed that the 1st respondent 'A' party is a cultivating tenant over the property and enjoyment of the CRP.940/05 2 same effecting valuable improvements for the last three decades. The present revision petitioner got himself impleaded in the proceedings contending that the properties originally belonged to his father and he is at present the owner in enjoyment of the same. He disputed the possession and enjoyment over the property by the 1st respondent 'A' party and also her status as the tenant of the property. In the enquiry, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the applicant as PWs.1 to 3 and Exts.A1 to A14 exhibited on her side. Revision petitioner 'B' party got himself examined as RW1 and exhibited a sale deed of the year 1939 as Ext.D1. Ext.C1 report of the Revenue Inspector is also marked in evidence. After appreciating the materials produced, the Land Tribunal negatived the challenges of the revision petitioner and held that 'A' party is a cultivating tenant entitled to the assignment of the land under Section 72B (3) of the Land Reforms Act as amended by Act 35 of 1969. The revision petitioner 'B' party No.2 challenged the order of the Land Tribunal preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority (LR) Kannur. The appellate authority, after hearing both sides CRP.940/05 3 and appreciating the materials tendered in the case, confirmed the order of the Land Tribunal. Impeaching the correctness of the decisions so rendered by the two authorities under the Land Reforms Act holding that the 1st respondent is a cultivating tenant entitled to assignment of the properties covered by the proceedings, the revision is filed under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act. 3. The main ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that suo motu proceedings was a collusive proceeding showing 'B' party No.1 as the landlord who had no right or interest over the property. The report of the Revenue Inspector collected behind the back of the revision petitioner was acted upon to hold that the 1st respondent is a cultivating tenant, no opportunity was extended to the petitioner to examine the Revenue Inspector who prepared Ext.C1 report and his objection filed to set aside that report and examine the Revenue Inspector were improperly declined by the Land Tribunal are other objections canvassed. The claim of the 1st respondent as a lessee of CRP.940/05 4 having obtained the property from Kunhambu Maniyani, father of the revision petitioner and Koraga Maniyani, father of 'B' party No.1 remained unsubstantiated and the exhibits produced by her as Exts.A1 to A14 no way assisted her claim, but, those aspects were overlooked, according to the revision petitioner, by both the authorities. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and the report of the Revenue Inspector, the Land Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the 1st respondent is a cultivating tenant in possession and enjoyment of the property, entitled to its assignment under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The decision entered by the Land Tribunal challenged in appeal, after re-appreciation of the evidence, was confirmed by the appellate authority also. The grounds canvassed in the revision to challenge the correctness entered by the two authorities holding that the 1st respondent is a cultivating tenant entitled to assignment of the land, according to the counsel, relate to finding of facts entered on materials produced which are not liable to be interfered with CRP.940/05 5 in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 4. A revision against a final order by the authority under the Land Reforms Act is entertainable under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act only in a case where the decision entered shows that the authority has decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. Findings entered on disputed facts by the authority under the Land Reforms Act cannot be impeached unless it is shown that in the decision rendered the authority has failed to decide or decided erroneously any question of law. None of the grounds canvassed by the revision petitioner is sufficient to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to examine the propriety and correctness of the decisions rendered by the Land Tribunal and the appellate authority in the case. A report of the Revenue Officer is an information collected by the authority under Section 105 of the Land Reforms Act. Revision petitioner was denied the opportunity to examine the correctness of Ext.C1 report, which had been canvassed to challenge the merit of the report and also the order of the CRP.940/05 6 Land Tribunal, does not at all impress me. Report of the Revenue Inspector is only an information gathered for the purpose of enquiry covered by the proceedings. The report can be shown to be wrong by any person objecting the information stated therein tendering other materials. Other than producing the sale deed of the year 1939 the revision petitioner has not produced any material in the present proceedings. The claim of the 1st respondent supported by Ext.C1 report is also seen substantiated by her evidence and of the two other witnesses examined in the case. Reference was made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the Land Tribunal had wrongly stated that the revision petitioner ('B' party No.2) had failed to substantiate that the husband of the 1st respondent had previously filed an application for assignment of the property. Such an observation had been made by the Land Tribunal overlooking the fact that in her evidence, the 1st respondent, according to the counsel for the revision petitioner, has stated that her father had filed an application for assignment previously. I do not find any merit on the circumstance as indicated above CRP.940/05 7 canvassed by the counsel where there is nothing on record to show that any application for assignment moved by the father or husband of the 1st respondent had been considered and negatived by the authority under the Land Reforms Act. Even assuming that any of them had filed an application without establishing as to what orders have been passed on such application it is futile on the part of the revision petitioner to canvass the circumstances referred to as disentitling the 1st respondent from claiming the status of a cultivating tenant over the property. After going through the order of the Land Tribunal and also the judgment of the Appellate authority, I find that the concurrent decision entered by both the authorities holding that the 1st respondent is a cultivating tenant entitled to the assignment of the land, is unassailable. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp