IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 4 of 2004() ------------------- AA.85/1994 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR O.A.NO.56/1971 of LAND TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD (IA 73/90) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6/PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. GOWRAMA, ATIKUKKE, BAYAR VILLAGE, KASARGODE TALUK. 2. A.GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT, ATIKUKKE, BAYAR VILLAGE, KASARGE TALUK. 3. A.PARAMESHWARA BHAT, ATIKUKKE, BAYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK. 4. A.SREENIVASA BHAT, ATIKUKKE, BAYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK. 5. SAVITHRI, ATIKUKKE, BAYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK. 6. LAKSHMI DEVI, ATIKUKKE, BAYAR VILLAGE, KASARGODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS 7, 8 IN AA/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KAVERI AMMA, ATIKUKKE, BAYAR VILLAGE, KASARGODE TALUK. (DELETED) 2. GODAVARI AMMA, CHERUPANATHADI HOUSE, P.O.MALLAKAL, KALOOR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 3. A.SREEDEVI, KURUMUJA HOUSE, KUMBADJE VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK 4. AG.VISHNU BHAT C/O. CAMPCO LTD., PUTTUR, PUTHUR P.O. CRP.4/04 5. A.G.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ATIKUKKE, BAYAR VILLAGE, KASARGODE TALUK. 6. LAXMI DEVI, PADPU HOUSE, PADRE VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK. 7. A.G.ACHUTHA BHAT, ATIKUKKE, BAYAR VILLAGE, KASARGODE TALUK. 8. DURGA DEVI W/O. VENKITARAMA BHAT, KOTE HOUSE, PADRE VILLAGE & POST, KASARGODE TALUK. 9. A.G.RAMAKRISHNAN BHAT, ATIKUKKE, BAYAR VILLAGE, KASARGODE TALUK. 10. A.G.SADASIVA BHAT, ATIKUKKE, BAYUR VILLAGE, KASARGODE TALUK. 11. A.G.VISWANATHA BHAT, ATIKUKKE, BAYAR VILLAGE, KASARGODE TALUK. 12. LEELAVATHI W/O. SUBHODA RAO, NO.12, BAJAJ AUTO OFFICERS QUARTERS, COLLEGE ROAD, OPPOSITE ANURAGHA TALKIES, MAHARASHTRA STATE. 13. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DATED 16.8.2004 IN I.A.NO.2493/2004 IN C.R.P.NO.4/04. ADV. SRI.L.GOPALAKRISHNAN POTTI FOR FOR R4,7,9 TO 11 SRI.A.DINESH RAO FOR R4,7,9 TO 11 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.20/2004 IN C.R.P.NO.4/2004 DISMISSED. 16.3.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.4 OF 2004 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Pursuant to orders passed in favour of the predecessor of the petitioners, a small holder, allowing resumption of one half of the land possessed by the respondents, which had been challenged and, finally, confirmed by the apex court, an application was moved for delivery of the property ordered to be resumed. The Land Tribunal allowed that application negativing the objections raised by the respondents. The Land Tribunal directed for issuing warrant to the Revenue Inspector to effect delivery of the property to the petitioners. That order of the Land Tribunal was challenged by the respondents filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kannur. The Appellate authority reversed the order of the Land Tribunal holding that the provisions under Rule 14 of the Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules has not been observed in issuing the warrant, and, it can be issued only to a staff of the Land Tribunal for execution. The warrant directed to be CRP.4/04 2 issued to the Revenue Inspector was not in accordance with the above rules was the reason which persuaded the Appellate Authority to reverse the order of the Land Tribunal. Propriety and correctness of that judgment passed by the Appellate Authority is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. At the time of hearing, it is submitted that pursuant to the orders of the Land Tribunal, the landlord has taken possession of the land covered by the proceedings in execution, and they are now in possession and enjoyment of such land. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the order of the Appellate Authority has only an academic value. Challenge against the order of the Land Tribunal as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel has become infructuous. However, it has to be stated that the view expressed by the Appellate Authority that the warrant could be issued only to a staff of the Land Tribunal and not to the Revenue Inspector for effecting delivery cannot be appreciated. Whatever that be, in the light CRP.4/04 3 of the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I find that the judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained, and it is set aside. Order of the Land Tribunal shall stand restored. Revision is accordingly disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp