IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 2573 of 1999(C) ----------------------- AA.77/1995 of A.A.(LR),THRISSUR SM.175/1976 of LAND TRIBUNAL, VYPEEN .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: --------------------- 1.KANTHIMATHI PILLAI LAKSHMANAN PILLAI, PARAVOOTHARA, NORTH PARUR. 2.KANTHIMATHI PILLAI MALAMUTHU PILLAI, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHASUBRAMANIAN SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 3 TO 10/RESPONDENTS 3 TO 10/R4 AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AND STATE: --------------- 1.LEELAVATHI AMMAL, NOCHIMUTHU ILLOM, THIRUNELVELI.11. 2.KALLYANI,W/O.AYYAPPAN KUNJI, KUTTANTHURUTHU, KIZHAKKEPRAM MURIYIL, KOTTUVALLI, NORTH PARUR. 3.GOPINATHAN,S/O. DO. DO. DO. 4.VISWANATHAN, S/O. DO. DO. DO. 5.PUSHKARAN, S/O. DO. DO. DO. 6.PADMAKSHI JAYARAMAN, KALISSERI VEEDU, KOCHANGADI, VADAKKUMPURAM, P.O. CHENDAMANGALAM. 7.VIMALA, W/O.SIVANANDAN MALETH VEEDU, KARIGAMTHURUTHU, P.O., KONGORPILLI. 8.GEETHAMANI,W/O.BABU, MECHERIPARAMBIL VEEDU, MANAKKAPPADI, KARUMALLOOR. P.O. CRP.2573/1999 9.THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN FOR R3 TO 5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P. MANGUZHA FOR R9 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.2573 OF 1999 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Revision is directed against the concurrent decision rendered by the Land Tribunal, Vypeen and Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur that the predecessor of the respondents 5 to 8, namely, one Ayyappankunji as a cultivating tenant is entitled to assignment of right, title and interest in respect of 1 acre and 99 cents of land comprised in Sy.Nos.91/1B and C and 90/1C and D of Kothuvally village of Parur Taluk. Revision petitioners are the legal representatives of one among the two landlords shown as the respondents in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. The other landlord has passed away and her legal representatives are impleaded in the revision as respondents 1 to 4. 2. Short facts giving rise to this revision may be summed up thus: CRP.2573/99 2 Sri.Ayyappankunji was the applicant in S.M.No.175 of 1976 before the Land Tribunal, Parur. He claimed to be a cultivating tenant in respect of 1 acre 99 cents of land comprised in Sy.Nos.91/1B and C and 90/1C and D of Kothuvally village. That holding formed part of 7 acres and 19 cents of property enjoyed by him by a varam arrangement. In respect of the 5 acres and 20 cents out of the whole property, which is a paddy field, a purchase certificate had already been issued in his favour in O.A.No.147 of 1966. Claim had been made in that application for the rest of the land 1 acre 99 cents of land comprised in Sy.Nos.91/1B and C and 90/1C and D of Kothuvally village. But, that claim over 1 acre 99 cents of land covered by the varam arrangement was declined since the varamdar under the then existing law was entitled to tenancy rights only over the paddy land. After the advent of Act 35 of 1969 enlarging the scope tenant under Section 2(57) in the Land Reforms Act the present proceedings S.M.No.175 of 1976 were taken in respect of 1 acre 99 cents, which are stated to be chiras situated in the north, south and west of the paddy field, over which an order of assignment had been made CRP.2573/99 3 earlier in favour of the applicant in O.A.No.147 of 1966. Admittedly, the appeal preferred against O.A.No.147 of 1966 by the landlords had been dismissed. Claim raised by the applicant over the chiras was disputed by the landlords contending that the varam arrangement was only in respect of the 5 acres and 20 cents already assigned in favour of the applicant. There was no varam arrangement over 1 acre and 99 cents, which is a chira, according to the landlords. 3. Previously, the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority had negatived the claim of the applicant. In the revision filed before this Court as C.R.P.No.829 of 1985 by the applicant, the orders passed by the Land Tribunal and Appellate authority were set aside directing the Land Tribunal to consider the matter afresh with reference to the question whether the extent of 1 acre and 99 cents covered by the proceedings formed part of the holding entrusted with the applicant on varam arrangement. Pursuant to such remission, the Land Tribunal after re-examining the materials produced concluded that the 1 acre and 99 cents formed part of the CRP.2573/99 4 varam arrangement and the applicant is entitled to assignment of the right, title and interest over such holding, and accordingly, an order was passed under sub section (5) of Section 72 F of the Land Reforms Act. The order of the Land Tribunal was challenged by the legal heirs of one of the landlords, the present revision petitioners, as A.A.No.77 of 1995 before the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur. The Appellate Authority concurring with the findings entered by the Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Propriety and correctness of the concurrent decision entered by the two authorities holding that the applicant, Ayyappankunji was a cultivating tenant entitled to the assignment of right, title and interest over the 1 acre and 99 cents of land as forming part of the 7 acres 19 cents of the land under the varam arrangement enjoyed by him, is challenged in the revision under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act. 4. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, hereinafter referred to as the 'landlords' assailed the orders of the Land Tribunal and CRP.2573/99 5 also the Appellate Authority contending that the land covered in the proceedings are chiras on three sides of a paddy field and the varam arrangement, whatever be the extent, could be confined only in respect of paddy lands alone. The paddy lands having an extent of 5 acres 20 cents alone was under varam cultivation and in respect of that paddy field the applicant had already been assigned right, title and interest under the orders passed in the previous proceedings O.A.No.147 of 1966 by the Land Tribunal, submits the counsel. After remand, no fresh evidence was adduced except the marking of the copy of the order in O.A.No.147 of 1966, by which, the assignment of 5 acres and 20 cents was made in favour of the applicant, submits the counsel. The Land Tribunal, without appreciating the circumstances and evidence and even ignoring the admissions made by the applicant that the chiras were essential for cultivation of paddy lands indicating that they were in existence even when varam arrangement were made, had passed the order of assignment, which, according to the counsel, is patently erroneous and unsustainable under law. The Land Tribunal CRP.2573/99 6 had heavily relied on the report of the Revenue Inspector to conclude that the chiras also form part of the varam arrangement which is factually incorrect. No reliance could have been placed on the report of the Revenue inspector, and, at any rate, it cannot form the basis for an order of assignment when serious objections are raised as to its correctness, is the submission of the counsel relying on Kunhi Amma v. Narayanan Namboodiripad (1958 KLT 709), Penakkot Ayisha v. Kodachery Thazam Pottayil Kunhathutty (1973 KLJ 327). The Appellate Authority failed to consider the challenges imputed against the order of the Land Tribunal in the proper perspective and its approval of the order is also based on faulty reasonings and not based on materials produced in the proceedings, according to the counsel. The learned counsel canvassed for setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal and the judgment of the Appellate Authority contending that both of them are unsustainable under law and facts. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, legal heirs of the applicant, contended that in the previous proceedings, the varam arrangement over CRP.2573/99 7 7 acres 19 cents was recognised, but the order of assignment was confined over paddy land alone since a varamdar under Section 8 of the Land Reforms Act, which was then applicable, could be considered as a deemed tenant in respect of paddy fields only. After Act 35 of 1970 enlarging the scope of the definition of 'tenant' under Section 2 (57) of the Land Reforms Act, suo motu proceedings were initiated in respect of the remaining 1 acre 99 cents, which too, was covered by the varam arrangement. In the light of the remand order, the one and only question that arise for consideration before the Land Tribunal was whether the 1 acre and 99 cents formed part of the varam arrangement enjoined by the applicant. Though the landlords disputed even the varam arrangement advancing a case that they are in possession of the land (chira) covered by the proceedings, the varam arrangement was over the 7 acres and 19 cents is amply proved by the previous proceedings and also by the application, previously, moved by the landlords for resumption of the entire 7 acres 19 cents as under the varam arrangement. Ext.A3 is the copy of that application, which, according to the counsel, had been rejected. The landlords CRP.2573/99 8 had also filed a suit for injunction in respect of 1 acre 99 cents before the civil court and that too was dismissed finding that the applicant was in possession of chiras on two sides of the paddy field. Appeal preferred by the landlord against dismissal of his suit too was dismissed, according to the counsel. The report of the Revenue Inspector collected in the proceedings also established that the applicant had continued in possession and enjoyment of the chiras, 1 acre 99 cents, under the varam arrangement entrusted to him. Reliance is placed by the counsel on Subramonia Iyer v. Joseph George (1968 KLT 200), Nilambur Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board (1988 (1) KLT SN. Case No.24) and Purushotham G. Plywood Co. v. Hamsa Kutty (1992 (2) KLT 756) to contend that the chiras had been put up for cultivating the paddy land and it was part and parcel of the land covered by the varam arrangement. There is no impropriety or illegality in the concurrent decision rendered by the two authorities, Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority, that as a cultivating tenant, the applicant is entitled to the assignment of the land covered by the proceedings and CRP.2573/99 9 the revision is only to be dismissed, is the submission of the counsel. 5. The crucial question to be gone into in examining the merit of the orders of the authorities impugned in the revision is whether the varam arrangement included the land (chiras) covered by the proceedings. The landlords had previously contended that there was no varam arrangement at all, but, later they changed the stand that it was confined only to the paddy land having an extent of 5 acres 20 cents in respect of which an order of assignment had already been passed in a previous proceedings by the Land Tribunal. The case of the applicant is that the land covered by the proceedings (chiras) 1 acre 99 cents form part of the varam arrangement. The Revenue Inspector's report collected in the proceedings supported the claim of the applicant. I do not find any merit in the objections made by the learned counsel for the landlords to the report. The decisions relied by the counsel do not lend any assistance that the report is valueless. In Kunhi Amma v. Narayanan Namboodiripad (1958 KLT 709), CRP.2573/99 10 what is stated is that the report is only an item of evidence and not a conclusive piece of evidence. No doubt, that a Tribunal cannot make use of its conclusions on the report alone. But the evidentiary value of the report with other materials tendered cannot be ignored. Section 105A of the Land Reforms Act empowers the Land Tribunal to depute any Revenue Officer appointed by the Government to conduct a local enquiry, investigation or inspection and the report and records submitted by him can be received in evidence even without examining him. If at all the landlords had any objection to that report, they should have summoned the Revenue Inspector and examined him to substantiate their objections, but, that was not done. More than that, it is also seen the landlords had moved an application as O.A.No.1396 of 1965 before the Land Tribunal for resumption of the land from the applicant. Ext.A3 is the copy of that application. In that application, alleging that the land had been entrusted under a written varam arrangement dated 7th March, 1957, resumption was sought for 7 acres 19 cents of the land as covered by that arrangement. Submission made by the CRP.2573/99 11 learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 that the Ext.A3 application had been negatived by the Land Tribunal was not controverted by the learned counsel for the landlords. A suit filed by the landlords seeking a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction in respect of the land (chira) covered by the proceedings after an assignment was made over the paddy fields 5 acres 20 cents admittedly had been dismissed. Appeal preferred by the landlords against the dismissal of the suit was also unsuccessful. Varam arrangement enjoyed by the applicant was over 7 acres 19 cents is amply proved from the facts and circumstances presented in the case and the materials produced in the case. It was urged on behalf of landlords that in the earlier suit, there was a finding that the western chira is in their possession and the chiras on the other two sides alone are possessed by the applicant. No such question is seen canvassed or considered before the Land Tribunal and it does not arise for consideration in the revision. The decisions relied by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 Subramonia Iyer v. Joseph George (1968 KLT 200), Nilambur Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Taluk CRP.2573/99 12 Land Board (1988 (1) KLT SN. Case No.24) and Purushotham G. Plywood Co. v. Hamsa Kutty (1992 (2) KLT 756) dealt with questions which I find have no connection or bearing to the facts presented in the case. A discussion with reference to those decisions canvassed by the counsel in the present revision is uncalled for as I find that the conclusion formed by both the authorities under the Land Reforms Act based on a finding of fact that the land 1 acre 99 cents covered by the proceedings form part of the holding 7 acres 19 cents enjoyed by the applicant under the varam arrangement, is found to be unassailable. Chira does not form part of the varam arrangement, but such arrangement is confined only to the paddy field, the challenge canvassed to assail the orders of the court below, in the given facts of the case, where it is evidenced by Ext.A3 application of the landlords, does not have any merit. Scope of revision under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act is restricted and the findings of the authorities under the Land Reforms Act in exercise of the revision can be interfered with only in a case where the authority had decided erroneously or failed to CRP.2573/99 13 decide any question of law. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.2573 OF 1999 () ----------------------------------- O R D E R 10th day of March, 2010 CRP.2573/99 15