IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 C.R.P.No.945 of 2002 (I) ----------------------------- AA.120/1999 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), KANNUR SMP.217/1991 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KANHANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/'A' PARTY: --------------------------------------------------- M. NARAYANAN, S/O. LATE A. PAKEERAN, MANIYANI, ALAKODE, PAKKOM P.O., AJONUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJEEVAN SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/'B' PARTY: ----------------------------------------------- VADAKKEKARA GOPALAN VAIDYAR, P.O. THACHANGAD, PANAYAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. R. P. No.945 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008 ORDER The 'A' party in S.M.P.217/91 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Kanhangad at Nileshwar is the petitioner. He filed an application before the Tribunal for assignment of jenm right over an extent of 1 acre and 17 cents of land comprised in re-survey No.607/1A of Panayal village. The S.M. Proceedings was dropped by the Tribunal as the petitioner/'A' Party failed to prove the tenancy. Appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority was also dismissed. Hence, this C.R.P. 2. Heard submissions of counsel for the petitioner. 3. The evidence of the petitioner given before the Tribunal is to the effect that the C. R. P. No.945 of 2002 -2- said property belonged in jenm right to the respondent Gopalan Vaidyar that his father Pakkeeran took oral lease of the said property and was cultivating paddy, sweet potato etc. giving purappad to the jenmi though no receipt was being issued to him by the Jenmi; that the total extent of property so held by his father Pakkeeran was 4.67 acres and that vide proceedings in O.A.1161/72 his father effected purchase of 3.50 acres; that the total extent of 4.67 acres which took in the above 3.50 acres and 1.17 acres was partitioned among himself his brothers and sisters and the extent of 1.17 acres for which purchase certificate had not been obtained had been alloted to his share and he is taking income therefrom and that therefore, purchase certificate has to be issued to him in respect of that 1 acre and 17 cents. C. R. P. No.945 of 2002 -3- 4. Ext.A1 is the partition deed entered into between the petitioner, his brothers and sisters. Thereunder the petitioner is allotted 'E' schedule, he being party No.5 to the said partition. Strangely enough the property comprised in R.S.607/1 over which the petitioner had prayed for exercising purchase right had not been allotted to his share under Ext.A1 partition. The petitioner has however, no case that otherwise than by inheritance from his father he obtained independent leasehold right over the property from the respondent. The tenancy right which Pakkeeran the father of the petitioner had was adjudged in O.A.1161/72 and Pakkeeran had no case then that any further extent is in his possession for which also purchase certificate is to be issued to him. The right of Pakkeeran stood concluded by the purchase of landlord's right C. R. P. No.945 of 2002 -4- over 3.50 acres vide order in O.A.1161/1972. It was in the above circumstances, that the authorities below concurrently found that the petitioner is not having leasehold right over the property of 1.17 acres of land comprised in Re Sy. No.607/1 of Panayal village and consequently, rejected his application for effecting purchase of the said land. There is absolutely no merit in this revision. 5. In the result, I dismiss this C.R.P however, with no costs as the respondent has not entered appearance. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-