IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 2225 of 2001() ---------------------- AA.Nos.21, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of 1998 of A.A.(LAND REFORMS), TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2, 5 IN O.A.NO.65/1982: --------------------- 1.S.UMAIBAN, M M K BUNGLOW, MADEENA, TC 3/450, TRIVANDRUM – 25. 2.M.NOORJAHAN, DO. DO. 3.M.SHEMSARJAHAN, DO. DO. 4.M.RAISJIHAN, DO. DO. (THE FIRST REVISION PETITIONER AS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY REPRESENTS REVISION PETITIONERS 2 TO 4) BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS & GOVERNMENT: --------------- 1.UMMERKANNU RAWTHER, VANDANLODE ESTATE 22, KULATHUPUZHA P.O. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.ABDUL KARIM. 2.DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3.ISHA BEEVI, AL-MANAR MANZIL, VALAVUPACHA, CHITHARA, P.O.KADAKKAL. 4.SIMI SHERIN, DO. DO. 5.A.K.FIROZ, DO. DO. 6.A.K.RIYAZ, DO. DO. 7.GOVT. OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3,4 SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR FOR R3,4 SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN FOR R3,4 SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR FOR R3,4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN FOR R7 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.2225 OF 2001 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 O R D E R The revision is filed by the landlords challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority (LR), Thiruvananthapuram dismissing the appeals preferred against the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, Kollam assigning the tenancy rights over the land covered by the proceedings to various tenants. Several appeals were preferred by the landlords against the orders of the Land Tribunal and all of them after being considered together were disposed under a common order. The Appellate Authority has found that the appeal preferred is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The present revision is preferred against the respondents, the legal heirs of one among the applicants in whose favour assignment of tenancy right was ordered by the Land Tribunal. Strangely, it is seen that in the memorandum of revision, common grounds of attack against the decision CRP.2225/01 2 rendered in the common judgment in respect of all tenants is sought to be impeached by the landlords. The revision is filed against the decision rendered in all the appeals by the Appellate Authority. However, the applicants in the proceedings covered by the other appeals are not made parties in the revision. When that be the case, the revision is not entertainable, and on that ground, it is liable to be dismissed. Revision is accordingly dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.2225 OF 2001 () ----------------------------------- O R D E R 24th day of March, 2010 CRP.2225/01 4