IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER, 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1930 CRP.No. 975 of 2002() --------------------- AA.104/2001 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), ALAPPUZHA SMP.41/1991 of LAND TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/PETITIONER ANNIE JOSEPH, W/O.JOSEPH, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, EZHATTUMUGHOM KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE P.O.,EZHATTUMUGHOM,ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1. ANTONY GEORGE,S/O.ANTONY,PARACKAL VEEDU, THEKKUMHBHAGOM VILLAGE. 2. JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,PARAVATTIL HOUSE, CHERIA KARA,COCHIN TALUK. 3. ANNAMMA THOMAS, W/O.THOMAS,ILLIPARAMBIL PULIMCUNNU,ALAPPUZHA. 4. PLAMANA,W/O.LATE ANTONY DEVASIA, PARACKAL,EZHATTUMUGHOM,MOOKKANNOOR P.O., (VIA) ANKAMALY. 5. TONY S/O.LATE ANTONY DEVASIA, PARACKAL,EZHATTUMUGHOM,MOOKKANNOOR P.O., (VIA) ANKAMALY. 6. REENA, D/O. LATE ANTONY DEVASIA, PARACKAL, EZHATTUMUGHOM,MOOKKANNOOR P.O.,(VIA) ANKAMALY. 7. BEENA D/O. LATE ANTONY DEVASIA, PARACKAL,EZHATTUMUGHOM,MOOKKANNOOR P.O.,(VIA) ANKAMALY. 8. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. SRI.A.V.THOMAS FOR R3 SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN FOR R3 SRI.K.T.THOMAS FOR R3 SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) FOR R1&2 SRI.JEEMON K.ABRAHAM FOR R4 TO R7 SMT.UNNI SOBHANA FOR R4 TO R7 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SHYSON PL MANGUZHA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.11.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 975 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008 O R D E R Suo motu case S.M.P. No.30 of 1988 was initiated by the Land Tribunal in respect of 3 acres of land in Survey No.680 /1 of Manjapra Village based on the application filed by the petitioner Annie Joseph. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a cultivating tenant entitled to fixity of tenure in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Reform Act, 1963. The suo motu case was once allowed by order dated 29.7.1988 and certificate of purchase dated 17.10.1988 was issued to the applicant for 3 acres of land in Survey No.680/1 of Manjapra Village. The Revenue Inspector on inspection reported that the land comprised in Survey No.680/1 of Manjapra Village is completely puramboke land involved in L.C. Case No. 96/120, that the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue purchase certificate in respect of puramboke land and that issuance of purchase certificate was caused by a mistake. On the basis of the said report, the purchase certificate already issued to the applicant was cancelled by order dated 8.12.1988 in I.A. No.13 of 1988 in the above C.R.P. NO. 975/2002 2 S.M. case. This order was challenged by the applicant before the Appellate Authority as L.R.A.S. No.2 of 1989, but the same was dismissed. The appeal filed by respondents 1 and 2 as L.R.A.S. No.1 of 1989 was disposed of by the Appellate Authority finding that the land involved was puramboke land and that the Land Tribunal has no power for assignment of Government land. The order dated 29.7.1988 in S.M.P. No. 30 of 1988 was, therefore, set aside. The orders passed by the Appellate Authority in L.R.A.S. Nos. 1 of 1989 and 2 of 1989 were challenged by the applicant in C.R.P. Nos.856 and 860 of 1990. This Court by order dated 12.3.1991 held that the property in question is not puramboke land, set aside the orders under appeal and remanded the case to the Land Tribunal for denovo consideration. 2. The authorities below considered the case on merits. After a detailed examination, the courts below arrived at the conclusion that the applicant is not a cultivating tenant entitled to fixity of tenure. The courts below referred to the litigations between the parties and the evidence on record. I have also perused the evidence on record and I find that the civil court considered the question of possession in the suit filed by both sides in O.S. Nos. 397 of 1988 and 211 of 1989 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Aluva. In that suit, a decree was passed in favour of the C.R.P. NO. 975/2002 3 respondents holding that they are in possession of the property and that the applicant is not in possession of the property. The appeals filed as A.S. Nos.39 of 1994 and 40 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur challenging the said decree were dismissed confirming the findings of the trial court. The Second Appeal filed against the said judgment also ended in dismissal. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that in O.P. No.4388 of 1973, an application was filed by the original jenmi for a direction to the Government for assignment of right and that the revision petitioner was an additional respondent in the said Original Petition. Counsel further contended that O.P. No. 4388 of 1973 was disposed of by this Court directing the Government to dispose of the matter after considering the rival contention of the parties. According to counsel, in the said Original Petition, the jenmi had admitted the fact that 3 acres of land is outstanding on lease to the applicant. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Government considered the matter on merits and passed orders directing the applicant to approach the concerned Land Tribunal for appropriate orders and that it was on the basis of the said direction that suo motu proceedings were initiated. C.R.P. NO. 975/2002 4 4. In the light of the fact that the applicant is not in possession of the property in question, her claim for fixity of tenure is totally untenable. The claim was filed mischievously. I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority which is in conformity with the findings of the Land Tribunal. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO. 975/2002 5 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 975/2002 O R D E R 21st November, 2008 C.R.P. NO. 975/2002 6