IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 661 of 2001(E) SMP.7/1996 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM AA.282/1998 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY(LAND REFORMS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVN. PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT/APPLICANT: 1.PULLAN KANNAN, THOTTIKKARA CHARUVIL VEEDU, CHITTUMALA, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM (DIED) LEGAL HEIRS IMPLEADED. ADDL.PETITIONER 2.KUTTI, W/O. LATE PULLAN KANNAN THOTTIKKARA CHARUVIL VEEDU, CHITTUMALA, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. ADDL.PETITIONER 3.K. BABU, S/O. LATE PULLAN KANNAN THOTTIKKARA CHARUVIL VEEDU, CHITTUMALA, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. ADDL.PETITIONER 4.VALSALA, D/O.LATE PULLAN KANNAN THOTTIKKARA CHARUVIL VEEDU, CHITTUMALA, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. (ADDITIONAL PETITTIONERS 2 TO 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SOLE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 7.1.2005 IN I.A. NO.3660 OF 2004) BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & SECOND RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 AND STATE: 1.TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2.KUNJAN PILLAI KUTTAN PILLAI, EDAKKAT PADINJATTETHIL, CHITTUMALA, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. 3.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHYSON P. MANGUZHA FOR R3 SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN FOR R1 SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN FOR R1 SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA FOR R1 SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN C.M.P.NOS. 1465 OF 2001 AND 2108 OF 2003 IN C.R.P. NO. 661 OF 2001. DISMISSED 11.6.2008 Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 661 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The applicant in S.M.P. No.7 of 1996 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Kollam is the revision petitioner. The proceeding in question is a suo motu proceeding initiated by the Land Tribunal on the basis of the report of the authorised officer that the applicant is entitled for assignment of right, title and interest over 18.16 acres of land in Survey no.446/4 of East Kallada Village. The case of the applicant was that he occupied the property as 'vakkal pattom (oral lease) for Rs.200/- per annum from the manager of Vadayattu Vikraman, effected improvements in the property, constructed a homestead and has been in possession and enjoyment of the property for the last 35 years. The applicant also tendered evidence stating that he was paying pattom to the second respondent. 2. The first respondent is the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board. It is the case of the Devaswom Board that the property having a C.R.P. NO.661/2001 2 large extent of 8.87 acres including the property in question was taken possession of by the Devaswom Board by Gazette notification dated 30.1.1989 with effect from 12.5.1988. According to the Devaswom Board, the applicant was a trespasser and he constructed the homestead after trespassing into the property. The second respondent supported the case of the applicant and gave evidence to the effect that the property was entrusted with the applicant in the year 1959 on lease for Rs.200/- per annum. The applicant also examined one witness on his side. The Land Tribunal examined the records, depositions and other documents in detail and held that the land in question was under the ownership of Vadayattu Vikraman and was sub leased to the applicant during the year 1959 by the manager of the said Vadayattu Vikraman. The Land Tribunal also held that the property is vested with the Government as on 1.1.1970. On the basis of the finding entered, the Land Tribunal further held that the land in question is under the possession and enjoyment of the applicant as a cultivating tenant before 1.4.1964 and thus the applicant is entitled to assignment of the said property. 3. In the appeal, A.A. No.282 of 1998, filed by the Devaswom Board, the Appellate Authority (LR), Thiruvananthapuram took the view that the documents, Exts.A1 to A5, produced by the applicant relate to C.R.P. NO.661/2001 3 the period since 1992 and, therefore, insufficient to conclude that the applicant was in possession of the property for the past 38 years as claimed by him. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the Devaswom Board stating that the applicant/ first respondent therein has no manner of right as a cultivating tenant in respect of the property in question. 4. The Appellate Authority evidently had not discussed the oral evidence adduced by the parties nor the report of the authorised officer marked as Ext.C1. The Land Tribunal entered the finding based on the report of the authorised officer and the oral evidence adduced by the parties. I find that the Appellate Authority entered the finding without examining the materials on record. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the Appellate Authority. The matter is, therefore, remitted to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration. The Appellate Authority shall give notice to the parties and give them an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence, if any, to substantiate their case. Learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the revision petitioner brought to my notice the undertaking recorded by this Court that the revision petitioner will not cut and remove the trees standing in the property or commit any waste in the property. The C.R.P. NO.661/2001 4 undertaking recorded in C.M.P. No.2108 of 2002 shall continue till the disposal of the appeal. The Appellate Authority shall dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.661/2001 5 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 661/2001 O R D E R 11th June, 2008