IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 563 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 5.3.2009 IN A.A.NO.19/2006 ONTHE FILE OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.3.1995 IN SM.NO.63/1985 OF SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LR -I MALAPPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT/3RD PARTY: --------------------------------------------------- P.V.MURALEEDHRAN, S/O.VASUDEVAN, MELAPPATHUR HOUSE, POST ELAMKUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676122. BY ADV. MR.K.SHRIHARI RAO MS.N.SHOBHA RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------------- 1. U.C.SREEDHARAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, P.O.PORUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TRUSTEE BOARD CHAIRMAN, PORUR DEVASWOM, P.O. PORUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. MR.N.M.MADHU FOR R1 MS.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.563 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order dated 5.3.2009 in A.A.No.19 of 2006 passed by the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur. Petitioner, who styles himself as seva pramugh of a Samithy, namely, Nilambur Taluk Kshethra samrakshana Samithy, has filed the above appeal challenging the order of assigning the janmam right over 0.68 cents of land in R.S.No.316/3 and 327/C of Porur Village of Ernad Taluk of Malappuram District to the first respondent. Assignment was made over Deveswom land belonging to a temple in view of the fraud purported by the first respondent, was the case of the petitioner. Though the assignment was made in 1985, challenge against it was made two decades later by the petitioner stating that he came to know of the assignment only recently when the first respondent attempted to cut and remove trees from the assigned land. The first respondent resisted the challenge contending that the petitioner has no locus standi to file an C.R.P.No.563 of 2009 2 appeal. Second respondent/Devaswom which, admittedly, was the landlord of the assigned land submitted it has no objection against the assignment already made. The Appellate Authority, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal under the impugned order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. First respondent has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that as he being a devotee he has competency to challenge the assignment which has been obtained exparte by fraud. The Appellate Authority was not correct in holding that the petitioner has no locus standi to prefer an appeal against the assignment, according to the counsel. Whatever that be, it is seen, the challenge against the assignment order was raised by the petitioner after more than two decades making a specious plea that he came to know of the assignment only when the first respondent made attempts to cut trees from the assigned land. Having regard to the impact of Section 72K of the Kerala Land C.R.P.No.563 of 2009 3 Reforms Act, that once an assignment had been made under the provisions of the Act, it shall be deemed as a transfer of title to the assignee and it has to be treated as conclusive and final I am unable to accept the reason canvassed by the petitioner for setting forth the belated challenge against the assignment order. Further more, in the present case, the landlord/Devaswom (second respondent) has no objection to the assignment is also a relevant factor. In the circumstance, I find there is no scope for interfering with the order passed by the Appellate Authority in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Revision dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-