IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 163 of 2006() --------------------- AA.35/2004 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), ALAPPUZHA SMP. 122/01 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/NOT A PARTY TO SMP: ------------------------------------------------------ RAVIKUMAR ALIAS RAVINANDANAN, S/O.LATE SRI.RAMAN MENON, ADVOCATE, AMBILI NIVAS, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.N.K.KARNIS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT, RESPDT. IN SMP & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KESUKKUTTAN NAIR, S/O.LATE SRI.MADHAVAN PILLA, VALAVAKKOTTU HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM, ETTUMANOOR P.O. 2. NEELAKANTAN NAMBOOTHIRI, MAMBATTU MANA, NADAMA VILLAGE, EROOR P.O. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3 SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE FOR R1 SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.163 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 2nd November, 2009 ORDER The revision is directed against the dismissal of an appeal preferred by the petitioner by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Alappuzha. Petitioner had challenged in the appeal, seeking leave to do so, the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam in SMP No.122 of 2001. He was not a party in the suo motu proceedings and, therefore, seeking leave, the appeal was preferred. The Appellate Authority, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal. 2. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the subject matter involved in the suo moto proceedings, the order passed thereof was challenged in appeal, was covered by a suit O.S.No.1413 of 1994 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam which had been instituted by him earlier in point of time against the 1st respondent. During the pendency of the suit in respect of the subject matter covered thereof, the 1st respondent had moved an application before the Land Tribunal for assignment of rights over the property, and later, suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Tribunal and impugned order was passed without CRP No.163/06 - 2 - notice to the petitioner, according to his counsel. Under that circumstance, the appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority seeking leave to challenge the correctness of the orders of the Land Tribunal. Petitioner had also moved another suit O.S.No.159 of 2005 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Land Tribunal impugned in the above appeal before the Appellate Authority on the ground that the order passed by the Land Tribunal is vitiated by fraud. The only relief canvassed by the learned counsel is permission to withdraw his appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority in which an adverse decision had been passed, by setting aside the order of that authority as well so that the disputes over the property covered by the suo motu proceedings of the Land Tribunal could be agitated before the civil court in the pending suit, and a decision by that court on merits can be rendered advancing the ends of justice. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent vehemently opposed the request made contending that on merits the petitioner has not made out any ground to impeach the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal. In the suit filed by him as O.S.No.1413 of 1994 relief was granted by the court excluding the property covered by the suo motu proceedings in which orders have CRP No.163/06 - 3 - been passed in favour of the 1st respondent, submits the counsel. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find that the decision of the Land Tribunal in the suo motu proceedings which commenced during the pendency of the proceedings and, later, an order passed in favour of the first respondent while it was pending to some extent had its bearing or influence in the decision ultimately passed in the suit by the civil court. Similarly, the decision rendered by the civil court in the above case had some influence over the Appellate Authority in rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal in the suo motu proceedings. It is evident from the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, it has not considered the question whether the petitioner has any interest in the subject matter covered by the suo motu proceedings. It was persuaded to take a view on the basis of some admissions borne out by the partition deed wherein the petitioner and the 1st respondent were also parties that the property allotted to him was not covered by the proceedings of the Land Tribunal. Reference made to the partition deed, the extent of the properties allotted to the parties thereunder, admission stated to have been made by the CRP No.163/06 - 4 - petitioner etc. in by the Appellate Authority under the impugned order indicate that the materials were not properly appreciated nor disputed questions analysed in the proper prospective in deciding the propriety and correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal and also questions relating to the interest raised over the subject matter by the petitioner to entertain his appeal against such order. It is also brought to my notice that the decision rendered in O.S.No.1413 of 1994 is under challenge in an appeal preferred by the petitioner and it is pending as A.S.No.327of 2005 on the file of the District Court, Ernakulam. When such be the case, I find the request made by the petitioner seeking permission to withdraw his appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority annulling the impugned order passed by that Authority deserves consideration. It is ordered that the appeal A.A.No.35 of 2004 preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) shall be deemed as having been withdrawn and struck of from its file with the result of all consequential orders thereunder including the impugned order also as having been set aside. 3. Learned counsel on both sides urged for issuing appropriate direction/order to the District Court, Ernakulam for an expeditious CRP No.163/06 - 5 - disposal of A.S.No.327 of 2005 arising from the decision rendered in O.S.No.1413 of 1994, which is stated to be ripe for hearing after completion of service, since it has a direct bearing on the other suit filed by the present petitioner challenging the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, so that a quietus to the whole controversy can be given without much delay. I direct the District Judge, Ernakulam having seizin over the appeal A.S.No.327 of 2005 to give top priority for its hearing, and dispose the appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of this order. Send a copy of this order to the concerned court. Revision is disposed as above. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE