IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 89 of 2008() ------------------------------ AA.2/2004 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR SM.174/1974 of LAND TRIBUNAL, IRIKKUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT IN 2/B.PARTY ---------------------------------- K.MAHESWARAN NAMBOODIRI S/O.RAMAN NAMBOODIRI, ADOOR AMSOM MALAPPATAM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.G.GIREESH RESPONDENT(S): A PARTY -------------------------- 1. EDAVAN CHATHOTH VEETTIL DEVI AMMA W/O. LATE VAYAKKOTH MADATHIL GOVINDAN NAMBISAN, RESIDING AT A NEW NADUVAL AMSOM, P.O. NADUVIL. 2. EDAVAN CHATHOTH VASUDEVAN NAMBISSAN BUS CONDUCTOR,VAYAKKOTH MADATHIL S/O.GOVINDAN NAMBISAN, NEW NADUVIL AMSOM, P.O. NADUVIL. 3. EDAVAN CHATHOTH UNNIKRISHNAN S/O.LATE VAYAKKOTH MADATHIL GOVINDAN NAMBISAN TEACHER, NEW NADUVIL AMSOM, P.O. NADUVIL. 4. LAKSHIMI AMMA, W/O.GOVINDAN NAMBISAN NEDIYANGA AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.NEDIYANGA. 5. RUGMINI, D/O. EDAVAN CHATHOTH VEETTIL DEVI AMMA, RESIDING AT NEW NADUVIL AMSOM, P.O. NADUVIL. 6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R5 BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT, SRI.K.N.ABHILASH, SMT.R.LEELA. R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 89 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010. ORDER Assailing the order of the appellate authority (Land Reforms), Kannur in A.A.2 of 2004, the appellant before the appellate authority has come up in revision before this court. 2. It is seen that in S.M.174 of 1974 dated 17.10.1975 before the Land Tribunal (LR) No.IV, Irikkur, purchase certificate was issued in respect of 2.50 acres of land situated in Re-survey No. 31.5A of Nediyanga amsom in favour of Vayakottu Madathil Govindan Nambisan. The respondents herein are the successors in interest of the said person. The complaint of the petitioner is that instead of showing him as the jenmi of the property, Adoor Illath Majheswaran Namboodiri was shown as the jenmi and purchase certificate was thus CRP.89/2008. 2 obtained. It is pointed out that the said person had no right over the property and infact the real jenmi was the petitioner herein. 3. Petitioner claims that he came to know about the assignment only when he came across the caveat filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein before the Munsiff's court, Taliparamba anticipating a suit from him. He immediately approached the appellate authority challenging the order of the Land Tribunal. Since there was delay in filing the appeal, he also filed an interlocutory application for condonation of delay. The appellate authority dismissed the delay petition and consequently the appeal also. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appellate authority ought not to have dismissed the delay petition and consequently the appeal because a fraud had been played on the Land Tribunal. It is contended that the real jenmi of the property was not shown as the respondent and there is a temple in the property. The property was not CRP.89/2008. 3 assignable at all. It is true that there is delay of 32 years in filing the appeal, but it is due to the reasons made mention of in the petition. 5. There is no merit in the revision at all. The order of the Land Tribunal is dated 17.10.1975, which is produced along with this Civil Revision Petition. That order shows that suo motu proceedings were initiated in respect of 2.50 acres of property comprised in Re-sy. No.31/5A of Nediyanga amsom. It is to be noticed that the purchase price was deposited and that had been withdrawn. 6. The lower appellate authority has noticed that no documents whatsoever were produced by the petitioner to substantiate his claim. If as a matter of fact he was the jenmi of the property, it is not possible to believe that he would have taken 32 years to realise that the property had been assigned. CRP.89/2008. 4 7. Both the authorities below have relied on Marupattam deed No.993/59 dated 6.5.1950, which was produced by the tenant before the Land Tribunal. It is on the basis of that document that the assignment was made. As already noticed, the requisite procedures have been followed and it was thereafter that the assignment had been made. 8. It is interesting to note that the petitioner claims that there is a temple in the property. If as a matter of fact there is a temple, it would not have taken so long to realise that the property had been assigned since obviously the tenant must have been exercising acts of possession over the property. 9. Apart from the above facts, if as a matter of fact a purchase certificate has been obtained by showing a wrong person as the jenmi, that will not be binding on the petitioner. CRP.89/2008. 5 Viewed from any angle, the order is unassailable. There is no merit in the revision petition and it is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.