IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27673 of 2010(T) --------------------------------------- OS.213/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG RC.3/2008 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KASARGOD (IA 25/2010) .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ANJILATH PATHUMMA,AGED 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT MOOLAKANDAM,ANANDASRAM PO, AJANOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. ANJILATH ALI(BUSINESS-MAN), S/O.ANJILLATH PATHUMMA, RESIDING AT MOOLAKANDAM,ANADASHRAM PO,AJANOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. ANJILLATH KUNHAMEENA(DIED), RESIDED AT MOOLKANDAM,ANANDASRAM PO, AJANOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kl. THOMAS P JOSEPH,J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C).NO. 27673 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Plaintiff No.1 in O.S.213 of 2007 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Hosdurg is the petitioner. He is apprehensive of the interpretation allegedly given by the Revenue Inspector with respect to Ext. P3 and P4 in his report. 2. Petitioner along with another filed the suit for a declaration of their right in the suit property. Respondents claimed to be deemed tenants under Section 10(v) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act ( for short ‘the Act’) Issue regarding deemed tenancy was referred to the Land Tribunal which took the reference on file as RC.No.3 of 2008. The Land Tribunal appointed Revenue Inspector to conduct enquiry and submit report under Section 105 of the Act. Revenue Inspector submitted Ext.P6, report. That was opposed by petitioner contenting that the Revenue Inspector with the intention of helping respondent No.1 has wrongly interpreted Ext.P3 and P4, documents as conferring right of illidarwarship to the respondent No.1. Petitioner filed Ext.P7, application before the Land Tribunal to set aside Ext.P6 report. That application was dismissed as per Ext.P8, order. That order is under challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel contends that the Revenue Inspector has gone beyond his authority to interpret Ext.P3 and P4 and say that respondent No.1 is a an illidarwar which was the function of the Land Tribunal. It is contended that attempt of the Revenue Inspector was to help respondent No.1 in his claim. Learned W.P(C).NO. 27673 OF 2010 2 counsel states that the Full Bench of this Court in NARAYANA RAO v LAXMI AMMA (1994(3) ILR Kerala 329 (paragraph 17 and 18) has held that in as drawn the distinction between a usfructury mortgage and an illidarwar. 3. I am not inclined to think that if any interpretation has been made by the Revenue Inspector on the relevant documents, that is going to bind or influence the Land Tribunal and the Civil Court which is to sit in appeal over the decision of the Land Tribunal. Report of the authorized Officer will be looked into for the purpose of matters referred to in Section 105 of the Act. Hence, even if the Revenue Inspector has chosen to make any interpretation of the impugned documents, there is no reason why petitioner should feel apprehensive about that. Notwithstanding the interpretation if any given by the Revenue Inspector, it open to the petitioner to urge before the Land Tribunal and the Civil court the real nature of the transaction with respondent No.1. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. Resultantly, with the observations made above this writ petition is closed. THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE. pm