IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 CRP.No. 488 of 2009() --------------------- AA.41/2006 of LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA. S.M.79/1993 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, CHERTHALA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/B PARTIES: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. PIUS, S/O.XAVIER, CHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NANATTU, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE. 2. ANDREWS, CHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NANATTU, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE. 3. JOHN, S/O.XAVIER, CHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NANATTU, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE. 4. THADEVOOS MARTIN, S/O.XAVIER, CHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NANATTU, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE. 5. GRACY, W/O.PAUL, CHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NANATTU, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE. 6. ASHNA, AGED 13 YEARS, MINOR, REP. BY HER MOTHER GRACY, W/O.PAUL, CHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NANATTU, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR Kss ..2/- ..2.... CRP.NO.488/2009 RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/A PARTY: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. GOURI, W/O.KUNJAN APPACHAN, NIKARTHIL VEETTIL, MADAVANA LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY, AROOR P.O., AROOR VILLAGE. 2. SURESH, S/O.KUNJAN APPACHAN, NIKARTHIL VEETTIL, MADAVANA LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY, AROOR P.O., AROOR VILLAGE. 3. SUNIMOL, W/O.RAJU, THEKKEKAYIPPURAM, ERAMALLOOR. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADVS.SRI.T.JAYAKRISHNAN, SRI.A.V.CHARLES, SRI.ANIL R.NATH. R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.L.SAJEEV THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------- C.R.P No.488 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th August, 2010 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order in. S.M. No.79/1993 filed before Land Tribunal, Cherthala. 2. Before the Tribunal, the revision petitioners were shown as B party and respondents 1 to 3 were shown as A party. According to the petitioners, suo motu proceedings were initiated for assignment of the land involved in the proceedings in favour of the respondents herein. During the pendency of the proceedings, the original applicant died and legal heirs were brought on the party array. 3. The revision petitioners filed a written statement before the Tribunal objecting to the proceedings pointing out that applicant had no right for the assignment of 1.29 acres of land. Replication was filed and the proceedings pending. 4. In the meanwhile, petitioner instituted O.S 426/1993 before the Munsiff's Court Cherthala seeking a declaration of title and consequential reliefs against the C.R.P No.488 of 2009 2 respondents herein. Respondents /defendants in the suit had set up a claim of tenancy. They claimed for fixity of tenancy. While the suit was pending, it is now understood that the application filed before the Land Tribunal was allowed and purchase certificate was issued in favour of the respondents. That proceedings were produced before the Munsiff's Court and Munsiff's Court accepted the same and dismissed the suit. It is stated that an appeal as A.S 62/2008 is pending before the Sub Court, Cherthala. 5. Since the assignment by the Land Tribunal is under Section 72 B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act during the pendency of the suit, that cannot be given effect to. It is quite unfortunate on the basis of such a purchase certificate obtained pendente lite, the Munsiff's Court dismissed the suit. It is very settled that when the suit is pending, the Land Tribunal has no power to independently determine the rights of a tenant on a separate application before the Tribunal. It has to wait for a reference in the suit and on receipt of reference both the reference application as well as the application before it C.R.P No.488 of 2009 3 will have to be clubbed and proceeded with. Hence the purchase certificate now obtained cannot be healed as valid and binding. The only remedy available is to set aside the orders produced and remand the matter to the Land Tribunal directing the Land Tribunal to await the reference from Civil Court and proceed in accordance with law. Hence this revision petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned orders and the matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal, for fresh consideration, in accordance with law and in the light of what has been stated above. There will be no order as to costs.. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE ma