IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 C.R.P.No. 1365 of 2001(E) ----------------------- AA.87/1995 of A.A.(LR),THRISSUR DATED 9.3.2001 AND THE ORDER DATED 31.08.1992 IN S.M. NO. 69/1991 ON THE FILE OF LAND TRIBUNAL ,COYAL MANNAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- M.VELUSWAMY S/O MARIMUTHU KOUNDER POOLAMBARA WALAYAR POST PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. N.N.BALASUBRAMANIAN 2/276, 5TH AVENUE ANNA NAGAR, MADRAS-42 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P. MANGUZHA SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD FOR R1 SRI.D.NARENDRANATH FOR R1 SRI.M.HARISHARMA FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON 18/07/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------ C.R.P No. 1365 of 2001 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July 2008 ORDER The appellant in A.A. 87/1995 on the file of the Appellate Authority (LR) Thrissur is the revision petitioner Suo Motu action initiated against the revision petitioner under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for the assignment of the right of land owners and intermediaries over the lands mentioned in the said proceedings, was dismissed by the Land Tribunal Coyalmannam and subsequently confirmed in appeal. Hence this Revision. 2. The Special Revenue Inspector who was appointed to enquire into the matter, has reported that the lands in question is a rocky area and the remaining entire useful area has already been assigned except the rocky portion as per O.A. 17/1972 on the file of the Land Tribunal Coyalmannam The Appellate Authority also confirmed the decision stating that the lands covered by the impugned order is not assignable under the K.L.R. Act since it is a rocky area. 3. The counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the Land Tribunal did not afford an opportunity to the revision petitioner to adduce evidence . On going through the order it is seen that the Land Tribunal passed the decision solely on the basis of the enquiry report of the authorised officer which according to the revision petitioner is not correct. C.R.P No.1365 of 2001 -2- The question whether the area in question is a rocky portion or there are portions wherein a person can cultivate or not are questions to be answered on the basis of facts to be gathered from the evidence. I am of the view that the Land Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity to the revision petitioner to adduce evidence or for objecting to the enquiry report before passing the Order. I find that his contentions are sustainable. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the order without going into the aspect as to whether the revision petitioner and respondents are given any opportunity to substantiate their respective stands. Therefore it has become necessary to remand the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal . This Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. The parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence if any. The Land Tribunal shall dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE es