IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 CRP.No. 291 of 2010() --------------------- AA.20/2008 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY(LR), KANNUR SM.1413/2006 of LAND TRIBUNAL (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR)), KUTHUPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ OVINAKATH RAMLA, D/O.FATHIBI @ PATHUMMABI, 70 YEARS, NO.1 MILL ROAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & STATE: ---------------------------------- 1. DR.CHENOLI KAMMANATTE CHANDRA PRABHA, SUSEELA VILLAGE, NO.1 MILL ROAD, KANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.291 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010. ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of the appellate authority (LR), Kannur (for short, “the Appellate Authority”) in A.A.No.20 of 2008 arising from the order passed by the Land Tribunal (Special Tahsildar (LR), Kuthuparamba (for short, “the Land Tribunal”) in SM.No.1413 of 2006 assigning landlords’ right in favour of respondent. Grievance of petitioner who was the respondent in S.M.Proceedings and appellant before the Appellate Authority is that she was not given sufficient time to adduce evidence and that the copy of partition deed No.2769 of 1983 given to the Special Revenue Inspector who submitted report before the Land Tribunal was not considered by the Land Tribunal or the Appellate Authority. Nor was objection to the report of Special Revenue Inspector considered by the said authorities and hence the decision of the authorities below are vitiated. It is contended by learned counsel that a perusal of copy of partition deed No.2769 of 1983 would show that predecessors-in-interest of petitioner were holding the disputed property from the year 1956 onwards. In response it is contended by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that inspite of sufficient opportunity given by the Land Tribunal as well as Appellate Authority no evidence was given by petitioner in support of CRP No.291/2010 2 her claim of possession of the suit property. Evidence produced by respondent No.1 before the Land Tribunal show that her predecessors-in-interest were in possession and enjoyment of the property from 1928 onwards. 2. The dispute is concerning tenancy over 17.97 cents in T.S.No.404 of Kannur Karar desom comprised in Kannur Village. Respondent No.1 claimed that she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit property as cultivating tenant as per partition deed No.3415 of 2006. She claimed that the property belonged in jenm to one Moosakutty as per document No.2820 of 1928. From the said Moosakutty kuzhikanam right was acquired by one Damodaran and from him as per document No.503 of 1930 one Rohini acquired that right. Rohini gifted her right to her children as per document No.1498 of 1944. In the year 1971 one of the children of Rohini (one of the donees), Balakrishnan assigned his right to his brother, Ramachandran as per document No.33 of 1971. Sreedharan, another son of Rohini expired and his right devolved on Rohini. Rohini and her son, Vasudevan released their right in the property in favour of Suseela as per document No.731 of 1971. After death of Suseela her right devolved on Respondent No.1 and others. While so, there was a suit for partition among respondent No.1 and others as O.S.No.244 of 1977. Thereafter there was partition as per document No.3415 of 2006 as per which disputed property came into the exclusive possession and enjoyment of respondent No.1. The Special Revenue Inspector, the authorised officer has reported that his enquiry revealed that respondent No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the CRP No.291/2010 3 property as cultivating tenant. A report was submitted by the Village officer which also was to the effect that respondent No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the property as cultivating tenant. As against the above petitioner did not adduce any evidence before the Land Tribunal. It is based on the evidence let in by respondent No.1 and the reports referred to above that Land Tribunal concluded that respondent No.1 is the cultivating tenant in possession and enjoyment of the 17.97 cents. That order was challenged before Appellate Authority. It is seen from the judgment that inspite of giving about two years' time petitioner did not produce any evidence before Appellate Authority to support her claim of possession. It is in the above circumstances that Appellate Authority confirmed order of Land Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. 3. Though it is contended by learned counsel that petitioner has preferred objection to the report of Special Revenue Inspector, that was not considered. It is pointed out that it is not stated wherefrom Special Revenue Inspector got information that respondent No.1 is the cultivating tenant of the suit property. 4. So far as the objection allegedly preferred by the petitioner even if it is assumed that such objection is preferred is concerned, mere filing of the objection is not sufficient. I stated that in none of the lower Forums petitioner tried to substantiate her claim of possession. Report of the authorised officer can be accepted as evidence. Special Revenue Inspector has reported that CRP No.291/2010 4 (as on the date of his inspection) respondent No.1 is the cultivating tenant in possession. In these circumstances I do not find reason to reject the report of the Special Revenue Inspector. It is a case where inspite of giving sufficient time petitioner has not availed that opportunity to produce any evidence which would support her claim of possession of the property. In the circumstances Appellate Authority was correct in finding in favour of tenancy pleaded by respondent No.1 and rejecting claim of petitioner. There is little reason to interfere. Revision Petition fails. It is dismissed. I.A.No.1333 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks