IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 CRP.No. 247 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/08/2008 IN IA 107/2004 IN AA.42/2004 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR OA.6852/1975 of LAND TRIBUNAL, TALIPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE PAYYANNUR SREE SUBRAMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE DEVASWAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PO PAYYANUR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & STATE: --------------- 1. VANNADIL PUTHIYA VEETTIL SATHEESAN PAYYANUR AMSOM AND DESOM, PO PAYYANUR. 2. RAJEEV GANDHI MEMORIAL CULTURAL CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PAYYANUR AMSOM AND DESOM, PO PAYYANUR. 3. RAJEEV GANDHI MEMORIAL CULTURAL CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PAYYANUR AMSOM AND DESOM, PO PAYYANUR. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN FOR R2 & 3 SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN FOR R2 & 3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER : ADV SRI. P R JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R4 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.247 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of September, 2010 ORDER As per order dated December 23, 1975 in O.A.No.6852 of 1975 the Land Tribunal (Deputy Collector, Thaliparamba) ordered assignment of landlords' rights in respect of 5 cents in R.S.No.98/7 in favour of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 assigned his right in the property to respondent Nos.2 and 3. After about 29 years in the year, 2004 petitioner challenged the said order before the land Reforms Appellate Authority, Kannur (for short, “the Appellate Authority) by filing A.A.No.42 of 2004 accompanied by I.A.No.107 of 2004 to condone the delay from 23-12-1975 till filing of the appeal. That application was opposed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, while respondent No.1 remained absent. Evidence was recorded on I.A.No.107 of 2004. Appellate Authority found that there is no sufficient explanation for the delay and that evidence of the executive officer of petitioner as PW1 in the matter cannot be accepted. I.A.No.107 of 2004 and consequently the appeal were dismissed. Dismissal of I.A.No.107 of 2004 is challenged in this revision. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner did not get sufficient C.R.P.No.247 of 2009 : 2 : opportunity to adduce evidence in support of I.A.No.107 of 2004. In response, it is contended by learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that there is no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Learned counsel has also produced certified photocopy of form D and E, notices issued from the Land Tribunal obtained under the Right of Information Act. Learned counsel contends that said documents show that notice on behalf of petitioner was served on the then executive officer and published as requited under law. 2. In the order dated December 23, 1975, the Land Tribunal proceeds to state that notices in form D and E were published and served (on petitioner) but nobody filed any objection. Thus, going by the impugned order notices in form D and E were published and served on petitioner. True, that was denied by the executive officer of petitioner when examined as PW1. He stated that he could not exactly say whether notice was actually received (on behalf of petitioner) by the then executive officer. He cannot deny the suggestion (that notice was served). He had not verified records (with the petitioner) to say that no notice was served on petitioner. He had no time to verify that records. C.R.P.No.247 of 2009 : 3 : 3. Along with the counter affidavit of respondent Nos.2 and 3 they have produced the certified photocopy of notice inform E and along with the additional counter affidavit they have produced photocopy of form E, notice. It is seen from the notice that there is an endorsement by the village man on 25-11-1975 that notice was served on the opposite party (in the O.A, ie, petitioner herein). Above that endorsement there is an endorsement “copy received” with signature of the person who already received the notice with the date '18-11-1975'. Learned counsel for petitioner has now brought to my notice carbon copy of a letter dated 29-12-1976 said to be issued by the then executive officer of the petitioner. Learned counsel wanted to show that signature in the photocopy of form E, notice produced along with additional counter affidavit does not tally with the signature of the executive officer in the document produced before me. This document is not produced in the case. Nor do I find any appreciate dissimilarity in the signature in two documents. It is seen from Ext.R2(c) produced by respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with their counter affidavit that the village man has made an endorsement on the copy of notice that it was published in the notice board of the village office and at the C.R.P.No.247 of 2009 : 4 : property. There is no reason why I should disbelieve the documents produced along with the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit which are issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 as per the Right of Information Act from the office of Deputy Collector (LR), Kannur (who is the Land Tribunal concerned). Along with that, I must take into account evidence of the present executive officer of petitioner as PW1 that he has not verified records to assert that no notice was served on the then executive officer of petitioner. It is also difficult to believe that for 29 years, petitioner was unaware of the issue of purchase certificate and respondent No.1 and after him, respondent Nos.2 and 3 possessing and enjoying the property. Contention of petitioner that it had no information about O.A.No.6852 of 1975 for about 29 years after the Land Tribunal passed order on December 23rd, 1975 is something which cannot be accepted without a handful of salt. 4. I must also bear in mind the scope of interference this court has under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. That provision says that the High Court could interfere with the final order passed by the authorities under the Land Reforms Act when there is a failure to decide a question of law or, when a C.R.P.No.247 of 2009 : 5 : question of law has been erroneously decided. No such contingency arise on the facts of this case. Hence no interference is needed in the case on hand. Revision fails. It is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-