IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 2495 of 1998(D) ----------------------- AA.192/1991 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY(LAND REFORMS), KANNUR OA.679/1975 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KASARGOD .................... REVN.PETITIONERS:RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------ (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF RESPONDENT NO.1 IN OA679/75) 1. MAVILA PARVATHI AMMA 2. RAGHAVAN NAIR 3. CHANDRAN NAIR 4. BHARGAVI 5. SAROJINI 6. MADHAVI 7. NARAYANAN NAIR 8. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR NO.1 IS THE WIFE AND NOS. 2 TO 8 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE KRISHNAN NAIR. ALL ARE RESIDING AT THEKKIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.THEKKIL FERRY. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND STATE --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.H.MOHAMMADKUNHI S/O.ABDULRAHIMAN RESIDING AT UKKRAMPADY IN THEKKIL VILLAGE KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.THEKKIL FERRY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP2495/98 ORDER ON CMP NO.4931/1998 AND C.M.P.NO.5441/2000 IN CRP NO.2495/1998 DISMISSED 7.1.2008 SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.2495 OF 1998 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is filed by the legal representatives of the landlord challenging the decision passed by the Appellate Authority (Kannur) dated 24.11.1997 in A.A.No.192 of 1991. The first respondent herein is the applicant in O.A.No.679/1975. The extent of land claimed under tenancy is 56 cents comprised in resurvey No.78/1 and 78/3 of Thekkil Village of Kasaragod Taluk. According to the applicant/respondent he is in possession of the property since 1960 on a contract rent of Rs.15/- per year and that he is entitled to purchase the right, title and interest of the land owner under Section 72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The respondent/landlord denied the alleged lease and contended that the applicant is not entitled to any reliefs, that the property is in the possession of the landlord, that there is no rental arrangement and therefore the O.A. is liable to be dismissed. 2. The original application was allowed by the Land Tribunal as per order dated 27.12.1975. In the appeal filed by CRP2495/1998 2 the landlord as A.A.No.1405/1982, the order of the court below was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. After remand, Ext.C1 report was submitted by the Special Revenue Inspector. In Ext.C1, the Revenue Inspector reported that the applicant is a tenant entitled to right, title and interest of the property scheduled in the application. The applicant examined PW1 and produced Exts. A1 to A6. The respondent/landlord examined RWs' 1 and 2 and produced Exts. D1 to D13. The Land Tribunal by order dated 19.7.1991, on a consideration of the entire matter, held that the applicant is not entitled to assignment of the property and therefore the original application is dismissed. The Appellate Authority (Kannur) by the impugned judgment in appeal filed by the applicant as A.A.No.192/91, the Land Tribunal's order was set aside and the original application was allowed holding that the applicant in O.A. is a tenant entitled to assignment. 3. After hearing both sides in detail, I am of the view that the appellate authority has not taken into consideration the evidence, both oral and documentary, in its entirety while deciding the dispute between the parties. The counsel for the CRP2495/1998 3 revision petitioners submitted that only some of the portions of the evidence adduced by the parties was referred and discussed by the appellate authority. So according to him, the conclusions arrived by the appellate authority without considering the entire evidence on record is therefore faulty and requires reconsideration. The counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the court below failed to consider Exts. D1 to D13 in the proper perspective and wrongly held that these documents are not relating to the O.A. properly. According to him, the appellate authority only considered the oral evidence tendered by the applicant and Ext. C1 report for concluding that the applicant is a tenant. The entire evidence on record according to him will prove that the alleged tenancy is not substantiated by evidence. Therefore, the O.A. is liable to be dismissed. On going through the judgment passed by the appellate authority, I am of the view that the appellate authority failed to appreciate the entire evidence on record before entering the finding that the applicant in O.A. is entitled to assignment of tenancy right. For a proper adjudication of dispute between the parties the evidence on record need be analysed and appreciated in an CRP2495/1998 4 objective manner. Therefore a reappreciation of the evidence is necessary in the interest of justice. The parties to the original applications are at liberty to adduce additional evidence, if any. 4. In the result, the judgment passed by the appellate authority is set aside. The case is remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. The appellate authority shall issue notice to the parties calling upon them to appear before the appellate authority in the month of March 2008. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge csl