IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA, 1931 CRP.No. 758 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 116/96 IN AA.423/1997 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS),KANNUR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------------------ CHEKKUTTY, S/O.KUMARAN, MOKKANDI, THALAKALATHUR AMSOM AND ANNASSERY DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.G.ASHOKAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. RADHA, W/O.LATE MOKKANDY KUTTY PERAVAN, AGED 48 YEARS, DOOR NO. 26/2180, PERAKKANDI PARAMBA, KOMMERI P.O. KOZHIKODE 7. 2. BILESH, S/O.LATE MOKKANDY KUTTY PERAVAN, AGED 31 YEARS, DOOR NO. 26/2180, PERAKKANDY PARAMBA, KOMMERI P.O. KOZHIKODE 7. 3. KRISHNA PRASAD, S/O.LATE MOKKANDY KUTTY, PERAVAN, AGED 23 YEARS, DOOR NO. 26/2180, PARAKKANDY PARAMBA, KOMMERI P.O. KOZHIKODE 7. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.758 OF 2005 -------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- ORDER Revision is filed under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority(LR), Kannur confirming the order of the Land Tribunal, Chellannur that the application filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of more than 20 years in impeaching a purchase certificate issued to the predecessor of the respondents in S.M No.1153 of 1973 by order dated 09/05/1975 is unassailable. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The case of the petitioner is that the property in respect of which purchase certificate was issued belonged to a temple, and so much so, the order passed by the Land Tribunal was improper and illegal. Petitioner claims to be the present manager of the temple. In the Land Reforms Act, there is no bar in respect of recognising tenancy over the properties belonging to a temple. Section 3(10) of the Land Reforms C.R.P.No.758 OF 2005 Page numbers Act makes it abundantly clear that the restriction imposed is only in respect of tanks and premises of any temple, and sites of temple in which religious ceremonies are conducted. That alone is the restriction so far as the properties of the temple are concerned in the issue of certificate recognising the rights of a cultivating tenant over a property belonging to or owned by a temple. So much so, the claim canvassed by the petitioner for and on behalf of the temple contending that the property belong to a temple and as such the purchase certificate issued in favour of the predecessor of the respondents cannot be accepted on its face value. Further more a revision under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act is entertainable only where the order passed by the authority under the Land Reforms Act suffers from an infirmity to such an extent as to having decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law. So much so, preliminary requirement for entertainment of the decision is erroneous decision of a question of law by the authority. In that backdrop, I find, the revision now canvassed challenging the orders passed by the Appellate Authority C.R.P.No.758 OF 2005 Page numbers confirming the order of Land Tribunal that the application filed by the petitioner impeaching the issue of a purchase certificate after a span of 21 years seeking condonation of delay thereof is unassailable and does not warrant any interference. Counsel for the petitioner seeks for reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge the issue of purchase certificate in civil court on the ground of fraud. No such reservation need be made by this court as the petitioner is free to pursue such challenges if he is otherwise competent to do so as provided by law. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv