IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 2204 of 2002(F) ----------------------- AA.28/1997 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR SM.106/1996 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KASARGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/A PARTY: ------------------------------------ SMT. LAKSHMI AMMA, W/O. LATE NARAYANA NAIK, KUNCHERI HOUSE, KUDAIMERKALA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/B PARTIES & STATE: ------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRASSEKHARA BHAT, S/O. LATE THIRUMALESWARA BHAT, KUDALMERKALA VILLAGE & POST, KASARGOD TALUK. 2. DR. NARAYANA BHAT, S/O. LATE THIRUMALESWARA BHAT, RESIDING AT "POORNIMA" HOUSE, HASAMANE, PALVALIKE VILLAGE & POST, KASARGOD TALUK. 3. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS CHEIF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHYSON P. MANGUZHA SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.V.PREMCHAND THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------ C.R.P No. 2204 of 2002 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of June 2008 ORDER The A party in S.M. Proceedings No. 106/1996 is the revision petitioner herein. The Suo Motu proceedings was initiated under Section 72C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for the assignment of the right title and interest of the land owner in respect of the holding comprising in R.S. 335/3A having an extent of 0.40 acres which was in the name of the revision petitioner The revision petitioner had filed an application before the Land Tribunal II Kasargode on 5.11.1973 under Section 72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for the assignment of land lord's right in respect of the property. That application was numbered as O.A. 664/1973. In the order dated 17.11.1975 the Land Tribunal No.II, Kasargode, held that the revision petitioner is not a cultivating tenant. This order has become final The Land Tribunal held that in view of the dismissal of O.A. No. 664/1973 filed by the A party the continuance of S.M. Proceedings was not legal and therefore the same was dropped. The Appellate Authority (L.R.) Kannur, for the same reason also, confirmed the order passed by the Land Tribunal. 2. It was brought to the notice of this Court that the order in O.A. 664/1973 has become final and the revision petitioner did not choose to file any appeal against the order dismissing her case that she is not a C.R.P No. 2204 of 2002 -2- cultivating tenant entitled to assignment of the property in question. In the light of the above facts, the initiation of S.M. proceedings itself is not legal. I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that they have no knowledge of the dismissal of the O.A. 664/1973 and therefore the petitioner intends to file appeal. The petitioner is at liberty to file appeal against the dismissal of O.A. No. 664/1973. 3. In the result, this Civil Revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE es