IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 463 of 2007() ------------------------------- AA.106/2000 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- AJITH KUMAR MENON, S/O.P.K. KAIMAL, NADUVELIL HOUSE, RAVIPURAM ROAD, KOCHI-16, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY DAYANANDAN @ MOHAN, S/O.P.K. KAIMAL, INDUKRISHNA, NADUVELIL HOUSE, RAVIPURAM ROAD, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. MR.P.KESAVAN NAIR MR.K.G.CLEETUS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. N. RAGHAVA MENON @ RAJAN, S/O.T. GOPALA MENON, NADUVELIL HOUSE, RAVIPURAM ROAD, COCHIN-16. 2. MANAGER, VTK ESTATE, KALIKKOTTA PALACE, P.O.TRIPUNITHURA, DT. ERNAKULAM. 3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.S.SREEKUMAR. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010,THE COURT ON 16/03/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 463 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010. ORDER This writ petition is directed against the order in A.A. 106 of 2000 before the appellate authority (Land Reforms), Alappuzha. 2. 62 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 651 was assigned in favour of the first respondent. The petitioner along with three others challenged that assignment by pointing out that the property was in their possession and the first respondent was neither a cultivating tenant nor did have in possession of the property. 3. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he laid claim to 17 cents of land in Sy. No. 651 of Elamkulam Village, which is a portion of the 62 cents already made mention of. He stated that he and his predecessors in interest have been in possession of the property for the last more than 70 years. One may notice here that all CRP.463/2007. 2 the three claimants and the first respondent are close relatives. According to the petitioner, the assignment in favour of the first respondent under Section 72F of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was without notice to him. 4. According to the petitioner, the extent of 1 acre 30 cents in Sy. No.651 and 652 formed a contiguous plot and belonged to the second respondent. The property was outstanding on tenancy right. Since the tenant defaulted in payment of rent the suit was instituted and the second respondent obtained a decree. In execution the tenant's rights were purchased by the decree holder. It is claimed that the second respondent thereafter transferred his rights in favour of the Chandramathy Amma, the mother of the plaintiff. Chandramathy Amma settled the property in favour of her children. It is claimed that the property in Sy. No.651 and 652 later was allotted to the share of Kalyanikutty Amma, the daughter of Chandramathy Amma. The first respondent is none other than the brother of Kalyanikutty Amma. It is alleged that there was an error in CRP.463/2007. 3 showing the survey number in the original title deed, wherein it was wrongly shown as 619/5 having 37 cents. In fact the property lies in Sy. No.651. The petitioner as well as the other two claimants already made mention of laid claims through Kalyanikutty Amma. 5. On the other hand the first respondent claims rights under a will said to have been executed by his father. His claim had been accepted by the Land Tribunal and purchase certificate was issued to him. 6. In fact the dispute involved in this case is between the tenants inter se and not between tenant and landlord. It may be mentioned here in that the claim of other two persons against the first respondent was dismissed by the Land Tribunal, which was confirmed in appeal. They came up in revision as C.R.P.510 of 2007 and 596 of 2007 before this court. The CRPs were also dismissed confirming the order of the authorities below. Naturally this petition should also suffer the same fate. However, a reference to the facts shall be made. CRP.463/2007. 4 7. The petitioner laid claim through Exts.P1 and P2 documents. The claim of the petitioner was that the property was allotted to Kalyanikutty Amma as item No.4 of B schedule in Ext.P1. But it was found that that was not correct. It therefore follows that the claim of the petitioner that Chandramathy Amma obtained the property as per Ext.P1 cannot be correct. The further contention was that the survey number shown in Exts.P1 and P2 documents was wrong. It was shown as Sy. Nos.619/5 instead of 651. The petitioner was unable to establish the claim that there was a bonafide mistake in mentioning the survey number. The extent of property in Sy. No.619/5 was shown as 37 cents and that in 651 as 62 cents. The description of the property shows that they are two different properties. 8. The Land Tribunal had assigned 62 cents to the first respondent. It was based on the Sub Revenue Inspector's report that it was so done. The appellate authority found that all legal formalities have been complied with and there was no infirmity in the order assigning the CRP.463/2007. 5 property to the first respondent and a purchase certificate was also issued in his favour. 9. The contention of the petitioner is that the Revenue Inspector's report did not reveal the true state of affairs and if one would take the entries shown as true, he would have contested and establish that the first respondent is not entitled to assignment of property. Though the argument may look attractive, one needs to remember that the claim of the petitioner is through Chandramathy Amma and it was found by both the authorities below that Chandramathy Amma had obtained no manner of right over 62 cents of property comprised in Sy. 651 of Elamkulam Village. A perusal of Ext.P2 shows that there is nothing to indicate that 62 cents of property comprised in Sy. 651 was allotted to Kalyanikutty Amma, who is the mother of the petitioner herein. It has already been found that the claim that there was error in survey number also cannot be accepted. CRP.463/2007. 6 10. It could thus be seen that as between the petitioner and the first respondent, the first respondent has a better claim. A perusal of the document also establishes the said fact. It was on an appreciation of the facts based on the materials in the case that both the authorities below had come to the conclusion that the assignment in favour of the first respondent was justified. 11. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the power of this court is extremely limited. A full fledged re-appreciation of the evidence is not contemplated. There is nothing to show that the authorities below have erred in any manner either in law or in facts. Both the authorities below have considered the documents before them and had come to the conclusion that the first respondent was in possession of the property and fell within the ambit of the definition of cultivating tenant and therefore assigned the property to him. The authorities have also found that the claim made by the petitioner based on the document cannot be sustained by CRP.463/2007. 7 him and therefore declined to revoke the assignment in favour of the first respondent. No grounds are made out to interfere with the orders of the authorities below. This revision is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.