IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 CRP.No. 376 of 2010() --------------------- AA.21/2008 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY(LR), KANNUR SM.1414/2006 of LAND TRIBUNAL (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR), KUTHUPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- OVINAKATH RAMLA, D/O.FATHIBI FATHIMAS, 70 YEARS, NO.1, MILL ROAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & STATE -------------------------- 1. CHENOLI KAMMANATTU ASHALETHA SUSHEELA VILLA, NO.1, MILL ROAD, KANNUR - 670 001 KANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695 001. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.376 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010. ORDER This revision is in challenge of order of the appellate authority (LR), Kannur (for short, “the Appellate Authority”) in A.A.No.21 of 2008 arising from the order passed by the Land Tribunal (Special Tahsildar (LR), Kuthuparamba (for short, “the Tribunal”) in SM.No.1414 of 2006 assigning landlords’ right in favour of respondent No.1 over 21.09 cents in T.S.No.404. Respondent No.1 claimed to be a cultivating tenant of that property. That claim was upheld by Tribunal which petitioner unsuccessfully challenged before the Appellate Authority. Hence this revision. It is contended that finding of the authorities below that respondent No.1 is a cultivating tenant is without any basis and overlooking the claim of petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that there is no merit in the contention raised by petitioner and no evidence was produced by petitioner in support of her claim before any of the authorities below. It is pointed out by learned counsel that with respect to a similar claim made by petitioner this Court refused to interfere vide order dated June 23, 2010 in C.R.P.No.291 of 2010. I have also heard learned Government Pleader who took notice for respondent No.2. CRP No.376/2010 2 2. Dispute concerns claim of tenancy over 21.09 cents in T.S.No.404 of Kannur Karar desom. Respondent No.1 claimed that she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property as per partition deed No.3415 of 2006 and that she is a cultivating tenant. She claimed that the property belonged in jenm to one Moosakutty. One Damodaran acquired kuzhikanam right over that property from Moosakutty as per document No.2820 of 1928. Damodaran assigned his right to Rohini as per document No.503 of 1930. Rohini gifted her right to her children including Balakrishnan, Ramachandran and Sreedharan as per document No.1498 of 1944. In the year 1971 Balakrishnan assigned his right to his brother, Ramachandran as per document No.33 of 1971. Sreedharan, son of Rohini expired bachelor and his right devolved on Rohini. Rohini and her another son, Vasudevan released their right in the property to Suseela as per document No.731 of 1971. On the death of Suseela her right devolved on Respondent No.1 and others. While so, Ramachandran, son of Rohini filed O.S.No.244 of 1977 against respondent No.1 and others seeking partition of the property and that ended in a final decree. The decree was executed and the S.M. schedule property and other items were given to respondent No.1 and others. Thereafter there was partition as per document No.3415 of 2006 as per which the S.M. schedule property came into the exclusive possession and enjoyment of respondent No.1. Thus respondent No.1 claimed to be a cultivating tenant of the property. Petitioner set up a rival claim that she got absolute right over the property as per document No.2769 of 1983. Before Land Tribunal respondent No.1 produced a CRP No.376/2010 3 copy of document Nos.3860 of 1935 and 3415 of 2006, relevant records from final decree in O.S.No.244 of 1977 and certain receipts for payment of land revenue for the year 2007-2008. Petitioner did not produce any evidence, oral or documentary. In the light of evidence placed before the Tribunal, it found in favour of the claim set up by respondent No.1 and ordered issue of purchase certificate to her. Before the Appellate Authority also petitioner did not produce any evidence and merely raised a contention that respondent No.1 has no right and that herself has absolute right as per document No.2769 of 1983. Appellate Authority held that inspite of sufficient opportunity available to petitioner, she has not chosen to produce any evidence in support her claim of possession and that there is no reason to interfere with the finding entered by the Tribunal. The order of the Appellate Authority is under challenge in this revision. 3. Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act invests this Court with revisional power against decision of Appellate Authority (and such other authorities as stated therein) but that jurisdiction is only to decide whether any question of law has not been decided or erroneously decided by the lower authorities. No question of law is involved in this revision, going by orders under challenge and the submissions made by counsel on both sides. Nor could it be said that the finding in favour of respondent No.1 is perverse or not supported by any evidence. As such interference in revision is not warranted. There is no merit in this revision petition. CRP No.376/2010 4 Revision Petition is dismissed. I.A.No.1830 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks