IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 954 of 2004(C) ---------------------- AA.174/2000 of A.A.(LR),THRISSUR OA.184/1976 of LAND TRIBUNAL, TIRUR OA . 663/1976 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/R2 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND 2ND APPLICANT BEFORE THE TALUK LAND BOARD: --------------------- KALODY NEESAMUDHEEN, S/O. K.A.MOHAMMED, KLARI AMSOM, CHERUSSOLA DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS 1 AND 2, R1, R3 TO R6 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND 4TH RESPONDNET, R5, APPELLANT, R2, R3, R6, R8 BEFORE THE TALUK LAND BOARD: --------------- 1. AMINUMMA, D/O.MOHAMMED, KALODY HOUSE, KALPAKANCHERI AMSOM, THOZHANNUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK (MALAPPURAM DISTRICT). 2. KUNHIPATHUMMA, D/O.MOHAMMED, DO. DO. 3. KALODY KUTHABDDIN, POST BOX NO.441, ABDUDHABI. U.A.E. 4. KALODY ABDUL HAMEED, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER UNNEENKUTTY, S/O.YAHU HAJI, P.O.RANDATHANI, KALPAKANCHERY AMSOM, THOZHANNUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK (MALAPPURAM DT.). 5. KUNHAYISUMMA, D/O.MOHAMMED, REPRESENTED BY UNNEENKUTTY, DO. DO. 6. ABDUL MAJEE, D/O.MOHAMMED, REPRESENTED BY UNNEENKUTTY, DO. DO. CRP.954/04 7. P.K.NAIR, PARAKKAL MOOPPIL, ANANTHAVOOR AMSOM, VALIYAPARAPPOOR DESOM, P.O.ANANTHAVOOR, TIRUR (MALAPPURAM DISTRICT). ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR FOR 1,2,4&5 SRI.K.MOHAMMED FAISAL NAHA FOR R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.2348/2004 IN CRP.954/2004 DISMISSED. 23.2.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.954 OF 2004 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the 2nd applicant in O.A.No.184 of 1976 on the file of the Special Tahsildar (LR) cum Land Tribunal, Tirur. In their application filed under Section 72K of the Land Reforms Act claiming to be cultivating tenants, these petitioners sought for assignment of 1.40 acres of land in Sy.No.150/03 in Kalpakanchery village and issue of purchase certificate over such land. That application was considered along with another O.A.663 of 1976 in which the applicants therein claimed tenancy right over 4.96 acres of land comprised in the very same survey number in the same village. Both the applications, after enquiry, were allowed by the Land Tribunal. Against the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, the respondents 2 to 7, who were not parties to the proceedings filed two appeals as A.A.Nos.1943 and 1945 of 1979. The Appellate Authority, after hearing both sides, setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal remitted the CRP.954/04 2 application for fresh disposal with notice to parties and giving them an opportunity to adduce evidence. After such remission, the Land Tribunal on the basis of the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides, again allowed both the applications and directed for issue of purchase certificate to the respective applicants in respect of the properties covered by their applications. The respondents 1 and 2 in the revision who were respondents 4 and 5 in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal preferred two appeals against the orders passed by the Land Tribunal. In the present revision, the challenge is confined only against the judgment rendered in A.A.No.174 of 2000 which arise from the order passed in O.A.No.184 of 1976 by the Land Tribunal. The Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment set aside the order passed in O.A.No.184 of 1976 by the Land Tribunal and remitted the application for fresh consideration. The order of remand is challenged by the 2nd applicant in O.A.No.184 of 1976. The O.A. was filed along with another, the 1st applicant who has been impleaded in the revision as the 3rd respondent. CRP.954/04 3 2. I heard the counsel for the revision petitioners. The order of remand was passed by the Appellate Authority without looking into the records of the case, nor even noticing that the additional respondents impleaded in the O.A., who were the appellants in A.A.No.1943 and 1945 of 1979 had appeared and filed objections resisting the application, is the submission of the counsel. Culling out some strong sentences from the order of the Land Tribunal, without referring to the other circumstances narrated in the order of the Land Tribunal, it is submitted, the Appellate Authority formed a wrong conclusion that notices were not issued to the additional respondents and they were denied opportunity before the Land Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the Appellate Authority ordered for remission of the case, which according to the counsel, is patently erroneous as it had been passed on factually incorrect statements, according to the counsel. 3. Perusing the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate authority with reference to the order passed by the CRP.954/04 4 Land Tribunal, I find considerable force in the submissions made by the counsel. The Appellate Authority, it is seen, has set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remitted the O.A. for fresh consideration holding that no notices were served on the additional respondents who were impleaded in the O.A. after remission, and, thus, they were denied of opportunity to adduce evidence to substantiate their objections to the application. The order of the Land Tribunal unequivocally demonstrate that the additional respondents impleaded appeared before that Tribunal, and through counsel, at least two of them, had filed objections also resisting the application. Though they had produced some documents, no attempt was made by them to prove such documents was the observation made by the Land Tribunal. That statement was also referred to by the Appellate Authority to form a conclusion that the respondents were denied of an opportunity to establish their case. Inferences drawn by the Appellate Authority are belied by the statements in the order of the Land Tribunal. The order of the Land Tribunal also reflects that the objections canvassed by the respondents had also been considered while CRP.954/04 5 forming a conclusion that the applicants are in fact cultivating tenants entitled to assignment over the land. When the respondents have entered appearance and filed objections resisting the application, there is no merit in the challenge that they were not given notice of the proceedings by the Land Tribunal. The impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside, and I do so. The Appellate Authority shall take back the appeal on file and after issuing notice to both sides hear and dispose the appeal A.A.No.174 of 2000 arising from the order in O.A.No.184 of 1976, on its merits, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Revision is accordingly disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp