IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 1120 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- S.M.1032/2008 OF LAND TRIBUNAL KOOTHUPARAMBA ------------------- PETITIONER/B PARTY -------------------------------------- KAPALI NAMBOODHIRI, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBOODHIRI (LATE), SEKHARA ILLAM, KARAYALAM AMSOM DESOM, KARAYALAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI. ABHILASH.K SMT.LEELA.R. SMT.SHEEBA .N.K. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. VADAVIL RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.VADAVIL PARVATHI AMMA, MIDHILA, POTHERIPARAMBU, MUNDAYAD P.O., KANNUR-670 001. 2. V.K.BHARATHI, W/O.VASUDHEVAN NAMBIAR, KOUSTUBHAM, OORPAZHASI, VENGAD, KANNUR-670 612. 3. PULLIATHODAN BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, NANDINI NIVAS, VARAM, KANNUR-670 594. 4. VAROVAN VEETTIL SOUDHAMINI, SUDHA SADHAN, MUNDAYAD P.O., KANNUR-670 001. 5. THE VARAM SASTHAMKOTAM SEVA SANKAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REGISTERED NO.S 557, P.O.VARAM, KANNUR-670 001. 6. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND TRIBUNAL, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 643. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OPC.NO.1120/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE IN PROCEEDING NO.S.M.1032/2008 F THE LAND TRIBUNAL,KOOTHUPARAMBU DATED 6/11/2008. P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE IN PROCEEDING NO.S.M.1033/2008 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KOOTHUPARAMBU DATED 6/11/2008. P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE IN PROCEEDING NO.S.M.1046/2008 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KOOTHUPARAMBU DATED 6/11/2008. P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE IN PROCEEDING NO.S.M.1047/2008 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KOOTHUPARAMBU DATED 6/11/2008. P5 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 18/6/2009 IN S.M.NO.1047/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P6 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE REVENUE INSPECTOR DTD 8/2/2010 IN S.M.1047/2008, S.M.1032, 1033 & 1046 BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL KOOTHUPARAMBA. P7 COPY OF THE COMMISSIONS APPLICATION DATED 1/11/2010 S.M.1047/2008, S.M.1032, 1033 & 1046 BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL KOOTHUPARAMBA. P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/4/2010 IN W.P.C. 11478/2010. P9 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/12/2010 IN S.M.1047/2008,S.M.1032, 1033 & 1046 BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL KOOTHUPARAMBA RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.1120 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 13 th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Respondents 1 to 4 claimed tenancy right in respect of certain items of properties. Suo motu proceedings were initiated before the Land Tribunal, Koothuparamba in S.M.Nos.1047 of 2008, 1032 of 2008 1033 of 2008, and 1046 of 2008. The petitioner is shown as the landlord. He entered appearance. According to him, the property over which tenancy is claimed belongs to the family temple of the petitioner and therefore, respondents 1 to 4 are not entitled to get the assignment as per the suo motu proceedings. 2. The Revenue Inspector filed a report in the proceedings. The petitioner filed objections. He also made a prayer to appoint a Commissioner to inspect the properties in accordance with the documents and revenue records to find out whether O.P(C).No.1120 OF 2010 2 the property claimed by the respondents 1 to 4 is part of the property belonging to the temple. 3. The petitioner had approached this court earlier in WP(C) No.11478 of 2010 praying for an early disposal of the suo motu proceedings before the Land Tribunal. This court as per the judgment dated 5 th April, 2010, directed the Land Tribunal to dispose of the four cases as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Admittedly, the cases have not been disposed of by the court below within the time fixed. 4. The Land Tribunal took up for consideration the application filed by the petitioner for appointing a Commissioner and passed an order dated 8.12.2010, which reads as follows: “B party filed objection to the RI report. Objection overruled.” O.P(C).No.1120 OF 2010 3 The order passed by the Land Tribunal is challenged in this Original Petition. 5. The order passed by the Land Tribunal is cryptic. The contention put forward by the petitioner was not considered by the Land Tribunal. The objection raised to the Revenue Inspector's report should not have been overruled at this stage. The report submitted by the Revenue Inspector would be part of record in the case. Therefore, the order passed by the Land Tribunal overruling the objection raised by the petitioner to the Revenue Inspector's report is set aside. 6. The next question to be considered is whether a Commissioner should be appointed. The Land Tribunal has not considered that request at all in the order dated 8.12.2010. There could be no serious objection to the appointment of a Commissioner to ascertain the facts of the case with reference to title deeds and revenue records. O.P(C).No.1120 OF 2010 4 The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 would not point out any plausible objection to the appointment of a Commissioner. However, since the Land Tribunal has not considered the prayer for appointing a Commissioner, I am not passing any order appointing a Commissioner. For the aforesaid reasons, Ext.P9 order dated 8.12.2010 passed by the Land Tribunal is set aside. The Land Tribunal shall consider the request made by the petitioner to appoint a Commissioner in the light of the observations made above and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. The Original Petition is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms