IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 CRP.NO. 141 OF 2010() ------------------------- AA.35/2006 OF A.A.(LR),THRISSUR SM.519/1999 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT --------------------------------------- PARVATHY, W/O.CHAMIYAR, KATHIRKOLUMBU, PANAYUR P.O., POLPULY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. RESPONDENT(S): NON PARTY AND RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHENTHAMARAKSHAN, S/O.PAZHANIMALA, KATHIRKOLUMBU, PANAYUR P.O., ATHIKKODU, POLPPULY, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI B. JAYASURYA FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.141 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010 O R D E R Respondent No.2 though served, remained absent. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader who took notice for respondent No.1. 2. This revision arises from the order of the Appellate Authority (L.R.), Thrissur in A.A. No.36 of 2006 confirming dropping of Proceeding by the Land Tribunal, Palakkad in S.M.P. No.519 of 1999. According to the petitioner, 15.5 cents in Sy. No.1518/9 of Polpully Village was in the possession and enjoyment of her predecessor-in-interest. Her husband was paying revenue for the land and tax for the building where they were residing. After death of her husband, petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said land and building. It is while so, that suo moto proceeding was initiated by the Land Tribunal. Petitioner did not adduce evidence before the Land Tribunal regarding her claim of tenancy. Hence the proceeding was dropped. Before the Appellate Authority certain documents were produced. But the Appellate C.R.P. No.141 of 2010 -: 2 :- Authority observed that the documents produced only revealed that petitioner or her predecessor-in-interest was in possession of the property from 1971 onwards and no document was produced, nor any other evidence adduced to prove the alleged tenancy over the S.M. Schedule property. Holding so the appeal was dismissed. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that respondent No.2, landlord had no objection to the claim of tenancy of petitioner as revealed from the fact that in spite of notice issued and served on him he did not appear in the Tribunal or oppose the claim. It is also contended by learned counsel that the Land Tribunal did not even call for a report from the Authorised Officer as provided under Section 105 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of her claim. Learned Government Pleader contends that it is a case where in spite of sufficient opportunity given to the petitioner no evidence was adduced before the Land Tribunal. No evidence was also adduced before the Appellate Authority except certain receipts to show that petitioner or her predecessor-in-interest was in possession of the SM schedule property from 1971 onwards. C.R.P. No.141 of 2010 -: 3 :- 3. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, I am inclined to think that petitioner could be given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of her claim for tenancy as she has produced some evidence which revealed that at least from 1971 onwards herself or predecessor-in-interest of the property had in possession of the property and respondent No.2 has not appeared to state in what other capacity they had such possession. I make it clear that it will be open to the Land Tribunal to call for report from the Authorised Officer if so required and as the law provides. It is open to the petitioner and respondent No.2, if he appears to to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. Resultantly, this revision is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside and S.M.P. No.519 of 1999 is remitted to the Land Tribunal, Palakkad for fresh decision after giving opportunity to the parties before it to adduce evidence in respect of their claims. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv