IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 8121 of 2009(O) ------------------------- AA.27/2000 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.SHYAMALA, W/O.PADMANABHAN, "NISHMALA", ARATTUTHARA, MANANTHAVADY.P.O.,ARATTUTHARA DESOM, WYNAD. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NARAYANA KURUP.P.V., S/O.KELAPPAN NAIR, PUTHIYEDAM VATHUKKAL, PERUTHARA,ARATTUTHARA DESOM, MANANHTHAVADY. 2. NALINAKSHAN, S/O.LATE.P.C.BALAKRISHNAN, PERUVAKA, ARATTUTHARA.P.O.,MANANTHAVADY, WYNAD DISTRICT. 3. RAJEEVAN, S/O.LATE.P.C.BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING DO. 4. THE APPELLATE AUTHORIYTY (L.R),KANNUR. ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C)No.8121 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- O R D E R In a suo motu proceedings a purchase certificate was ordered to be issued in favour of the first respondent recognising his tenancy over a property having an extent of 7.5 cents comprised in Survey No.269/3B in Mananthavadi village. Petitioner moved a review petition before the Land Tribunal challenging the order contending that the property covered is a public pathway leading to his property over which an assignment in favour of the tenant cannot be granted. That review petition was dismissed. Petitioner thereupon challenged the order of the Land Tribunal before the Appellate Authority and that too was dismissed. Petitioner thereupon filed a revision as C.R.P No.963/05 before this court impeaching the correctness of the W.P.(C) NO. 8121/2009 2 order of the Land Tribunal and judgment of the Appellate Authority. This court by judgment dated 18/03/2008 set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and remitted the case for fresh consideration. After such remission petitioner moved an application for appointment of an advocate commissioner to conduct a local inspection and to file a report. That application was declined by the Appellate Authority. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of the order passed by the Appellate Authority declining the request for appointment of advocate commission, petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of an advocate commissioner and collection of material through him is very vital W.P.(C) NO. 8121/2009 3 for a proper adjudication of the issues involved and fair disposal of the appeal. Submission of the counsel cannot be appreciated. Order passed by the Appellate Authority, whatever be the challenge raised thereof, can be canvassed and pressed into service if ultimately a judgment against the petitioner is passed in the proceedings in a revision against the judgment. Writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India cannot be entertained and visitorial jurisdiction of this court not to be invoked for the purpose of examining the correctness of the orders passed in an interlocutory application over an application for appointment of a commission. Writ petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv