IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34137 of 2008(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- P.V.PEETHAMBARAN, S/O.LATE P.K.VELAYUDHAN AGED 50, R/AT. PANACHIKKAL HOUSE, MONASTRY ROAD, KARIKKAMURI, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.IMTHIYAZ AHAMED RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. JOSEPH, S/O.MICHAEL, 78, METTEKKATTU HOUSE, MONASTRY ROAD, KARIKKAMURI, ERNAKULAM. 2. LAND TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, CIVILSTATION THIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.V.JOHN FOR R1 SRI.RENJU JOHN FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SUDHADEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 34137 OF 2008 (L) ==================== Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and also the learned Government Pleader, who appeared for the 2nd respondent. 2. It is stated that the deceased father of the petitioner claimed kudikidappu under the 1st respondent. During the pendency of the proceedings, he expired. It is stated that thereafter the proceedings continued with the legal representatives on the party array. During the course of the proceedings, Exts. P4 and P6 affidavits along with Exts. P5 and P7 vakalaths of the counsel appearing for the other legal representatives were filed before the 2nd respondent. As according to the petitioner by Exts.P4 and P6, the deponents of those two affidavits have relinquished their claims in favour of the petitioner. Considering the matter finally, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P8 order directing issue of patta to the petitioner on getting statements from the signatories of Exts.P4 and P6 affidavits duly attested by the Village Officer. It is aggrieved by the condition so imposed in Ext.P8, the writ petition is filed. 3. As already noticed, Exts.P4 and P6 are the affidavits filed by WPC 34137/08 :2 : the respective deponents relinquishing their claims in favour of the petitioner. Once such an affidavit has been filed, unless there is anything to doubt the genuineness of Exts. P4 and P6 affidavits, there is no reason for the Land Tribunal to have called for the statements of the deponents of the affidavits duly attested by the Village Officer. Nothing is stated in Ext.P8 to indicate that the Tribunal had any reason to doubt the genuineness of those two affidavits. 4. In the circumstances, I am not in a position to uphold that part of Ext.P8 directing to obtain statements of the deponents of Exts.P4 and P6. Therefore, that part of Ext.P8 will stand set aside. The Tribunal is directed to examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of Exts. P4 and P6 and pass revised orders in this matter. It is made clear that it will be open to the Tribunal to impose the condition in the nature of what it has imposed in Ext.P8, if there is any material available before it to doubt the genuineness of the affidavits produced in the proceedings. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp