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. 1554 of 2002(E) ----------------------- AA.105/1992 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY,(LAND REFORMS) KANNUR SM.2160/1973 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KASARGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ B PARTY NO.2 -------------------------------------------------- 1. P.GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT S/O.GOVINDA BHAT, RASHMI CLINIC, B.C.ROAD, BANTWAL TALUK, P.O. B.C.ROAD, D.K. * ADDL.2. P.SANKARANARAYANA BHAT, S/O GOVINDA BHAT AGED 60 YEARS, PATHANADAKKA HOUSE P.O KOTOOR, MULIYAR VILAGE KASARGODE. BY ADV. SRI.N.L. KRISHNAMOORTHY SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN SMT.SATHYA SHREEPRIYA SMT.DEEPA G. PAL ( ADDL.2ND REVISION PETITIONER IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. 499 OF 2004 ) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ----------------------------------------- 1. CHIRUDAI W/O. OF LATE KRISHNA MANIYANI, RESIDING AT PATHANADKA, MULIYAR VILLAGE, P.O.KOTOOR, KASARAGODE TALUK 2. APPAKUNHI S/O.LATE KRISHNA MANIYANI, RESIDING AT ARITHILA KARADKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.KARADHA. 3. KORAGA MANIYANI S/O.LATE KRISHNA MANIYANI, RESIDING AT PATHANADKA, MULIYAR VILLAGE, P.O.KOTOOR, KASARAGODE TALUK 4. KALYANI D/O. LATE KRISHNA MANIYANI W/O.KUNHIRAMA MANIYANI, CHANNANADKA, ADHOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK 5. BABY D/O.LATE KRISHNA MANIYANI W/O.GOPALAN, MANIYANI, BELA VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK 6. FORMAL PARTY (AS PER S.103(IA) OF THE KLR ACT) STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, TRVANDRUM BY ADV. SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI FOR R1TO5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN C.M.P NO. 3854 OF 2002 IN C.R.P NO. 1554 OF 2002 DISMISSED ORDER IN C.M.P NO. 3853 OF 2002 IN C.R.P NO. 1554 OF 2002 ALLOWED ORDER IN I.A. NO. 2689 OF 2003 IN C.R.P NO. 1554 OF 2002 DISMISSED ORDER IN I.A. NO. 499 OF 2004 IN C.R.P NO. 1554 OF 2002 ALLOWED 13.06.2008 SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------ C.R.P No.1554 of 2002 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of June 2008 ORDER The B party No.2 in S.M. Proceedings No. 2160/1973 on the file of the Land Tribunal No.1 Kasargode is the revision petitioner. The respondents are the A parties. Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A15 were produced and marked on the side of A parties and RW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 to B20 were produced and marked on the side of B parties. Exhibits C1.is the report of the authorised officer and C2 is the Adangal extract. On the basis of Ext.C1 the S.M. Proceedings are continued The parties herein are referred as B party No.2/revision petitioner and A party/ respondents as arrayed in the proceedings of the Land Tribunal. 2. I have perused the Ext.C1 report dated 14.11.1975 . The authorised officer reported that there is one Cocoa tree aged about 20 years yielding 30 nuts per year, there is a thatched house wherein the revision petitioner is residing. Apart from the house it is reported that a well is also attached to the house. On the basis of the inspection report the authorised officer recommended assignment of the property in favour of A party The A party has produced basic tax receipts for the property in R.S. No. 543/3 of Muliyar village( Exts A1 to A14). Exts. A1 to A14 relates to the period from 1974 - 75 to1991-1992 The A party also produced C.R.P No. 1554 of 2002 -2- the building tax receipt marked as Ext. A15. The B party No.1 / land owner also produced Exts B1 gift deed executed by B party No.1 in favour of B party No.2 Ext B2 is the provisional demand notice of Basic tax issued in favour of B Party No.2. Ext.B3 to B6 are the plantation tax assessment and demand notice issued in favour of B party No.1 Exts B8 to B18 are the basic tax receipts in favour of B party No.1 3. The Land Tribunal after examining the evidence on record held that the payment of basic tax after 1.1.1970 was made under Section 72S of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, that the Village Officer is also satisfied that the A party has been in possession and enjoyment of the S.M. holdings as a cultivating tenant The Land Tribunal also noted the further fact that A party is an illiterate villager and entered the finding that the A party is a cultivating tenant . 4. The Appellate Authority for the same reasons confirmed the decision of the Land Tribunal From Ext.C1 report the authorised officer noted the improvements namely one cocoa tree and a thatched house. From the materials discussed it is not clear whether A party was cultivating the property as a cultivating tenant whether this property contains improvements as on the relevant date and whether this property was entrusted by the land owner to the tenant. For the said matters there should a definite finding by the authorities below. Primafacie from the Commissioner's report it is seen that the property was not under C.R.P No. 1554 of 2002 -3- cultivation, I direct the Appellate Authority to re-appreciate the case and see that whether there is any fresh materials on record to prove the case of the revision petitioner. The Appellate Authority can direct the authorised officer to conduct a site inspection and to report the position as on 1.4.1964. The enquiry report on hand do not reveal that the revision petitioner is a cultivating tenant as on 1.4.1964. 5. In the result, the Judgment in A.A. No.105/1992 is set aside The case is remanded for denovo consideration The Appellate Authority shall decide the matter within 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This C.R.P is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE es