IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 29215 of 2004(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.KRISHNADAS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA MASTER, AGED 58 YEARS, TYPIST, RESIDING NEAR ARYA SAMAJ BUILDING, KASABA AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O. PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY SMT.SATHYA SHREE PRIYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. L.S.RAGHUNATH, S/O. LAKSHMAN NAYAK, AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NANDANAM, NEAR ARYA SAMAJAM, KASABA AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O. PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN SRI.NIRMAL SAJEENDRAN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RANI DIOTHIMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 771 OF 2005 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.29215 OF 2004 & 771 OF 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T In both the writ petitions, the contesting parties are the same and therefore, they are disposed of together. In W.P.(C) No.29215/04, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode to take up the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner in O.A.6358/75 and pass appropriate orders. Prayer No.(c) is to permit the petitioner to file a fresh petition or replace the petition filed claiming relief in respect of 16 cents of land in case the petition originally filed is missing. 2. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Land Tribunal disposed of the interlocutory application which is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.771/2005. The said order of the Land Tribunal has been produced as Exhibit P6 therein. W.P.(C) Nos.29215/04 & 771/05 2 3. The interlocutory application filed by the petitioner was one seeking an injunction against the landlord. It is a case where the Land Tribunal in O.A.No.6358/75 granted relief to the petitioner for obtaining purchase of rights under Section 72B of KLR Act 1963. The 1st respondent landlord filed I.A.21/86 in the said O.A under Rule 136A of the Kerala Land Reforms Tenancy Rules stating that the extent shown in the order has to be corrected in accordance with the measurement shown in the document. It appears that the petitioner also filed an application for rectification of the order claiming rights over 16 cents. The matter ultimately reached this Court and by Exhibit P3 judgment produced in W.P.(C) No.771/2005, this Court directed the Land Tribunal to consider the application pending before it at the instance of the petitioner for correcting the extent as 16 cents in accordance with law. The order under challenge in the said writ petition was one correcting the extent as 1.76 cents. The said order was not interfered with also. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the I.A. has been disposed of by the Land Tribunal, prayer No.(a) W.P.(C) Nos.29215/04 & 771/05 3 in W.P.(C)No.29215/2004 has become infructuous. It is submitted that in spite of the directions issued by this Court in Exhibit P3 produced in W.P.(C) No.771/2005, no further orders have been passed by the Land Tribunal and therefore, it is prayed that the Land Tribunal may be directed to pass appropriate orders as directed by this Court in Exhibit P3 judgment. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the landlord submitted that the main prayer in W.P.(C) No.771/2005 is to quash Exhibit P6 order and no further directions have been sought. My attention was invited to the pleadings in the counter affidavit. It is pointed out that based on the amendment of the Act, the petitioner had filed Exhibit R1(d) application before the Land Tribunal which was under challenge in O.P.No.3365/00. The same was disposed of by Exhibit R1(e) judgment in the light of the decision of this Court in Ratna Bai vs. State of Kerala (2004 (1) KLT 632) wherein the amendment was held unconstitutional. It is, therefore, submitted that the attempt by the petitioner to get his right established in respect of larger extent did not succeed. It is also submitted that the petitioner W.P.(C) Nos.29215/04 & 771/05 4 cannot seek a relief at this stage to consider the application for rectification of error. 6. Exhibit P6 order passed by the Land Tribunal in W.P.(C) No. 771/2005 is one refusing to grant injunction. The order has been passed after finding that the petitioner has failed to prove the fact of ownership and possession in respect of the land sought for injunction. A reading of the order shows that various aspects have been considered while rejecting the application. Evidently, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court may not be justified in going into the evidence in the matter as the jurisdiction is very limited. 7. Therefore, the challenge against Exhibit P6 fails. It is upto the petitioner to pursue his remedies in the light of Exhibit P3 judgment produced in W.P.(C)No.29215/2004. It appears that the Land Tribunal did not pass appropriate orders in spite of the judgment Exhibit P3 since records were not available. Therefore, if the petitioner files appropriate application for disposal of the Interlocutory Application, if any, pending before the Land Tribunal, the same will be considered by the Land W.P.(C) Nos.29215/04 & 771/05 5 Tribunal and orders will be passed in accordance with law. W.P.(C)No.771/2005 is dismissed and W.P.(C)No.29215/ 2004 is disposed of accordingly. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp