IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 514 of 2008() --------------------- AA.13/2006 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), ALAPPUZHA O.A. 134/2004 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS ---------------------------------- 1. PRABHAVATHY AMMA.V, W/O.GOPI, PRABHAVILASAM, V.P.1/50 OPPOSITE TO PETROL PUMP, PEROORKADA, A.K.G.NAGAR ROAD, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. R.GOPI, S/O.RAJAPPAN, RESIDING AT DO DO. BY ADVS. MR.R.T.PRADEEP MR.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS/STATE --------------------------- 1. MARY IRIN @ RANI MATHEW, @ RANI ABEY VARGHESE, PONNATHIL HOUSE, A.K.G.NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADVS.MR.V.SURESH, MR.G.SUDHEER(KARAKONAM), MR.ANIL THOMAS(T), SMT.K.V.RESHMI. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= C.R.P. No. 514 of 2008 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 O R D E R In this revision petition the petitioners challenge the order of the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuramin in O.A. No.134 of 2004, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority (LR), Alappuzha in A.A. No.13 of 2006. 2. The petitioners filed OA.. No.134 of 2004 before the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, claiming kudikidappu right over the property. The original kudikidappukaran was the father of 2nd petitioner and on his death, the right devolved on the petitioners as his legal heirs. The respondents opposed the petition. 3. It seems that the Revenue Inspector has filed his report. The case was posted on several occasions. Ultimately, it was posted on 28-1-2006. Then it was posted to 3-3-2006. Thereafter, it is stated that the respondents filed an advance petition on 5-2-2006 and the case was posted to 16-6-2006 and on 16-6-2006 the Tribunal passed CRP 514/08 2 the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the petitioners had no idea that the case was posted on 16-6- 2006 for taking evidence. No evidence was adduced by them. They filed objection to Commissioner's report and no opportunity was given to substantiate their case. There is no dispute that though the case was posted on 16-6-2006 neither of the parties adduced evidence and the Tribunal had passed the impugned order. The revision petitioners claim that even assuming that the Tribunal found that the 2nd petitioner before the Tribunal is having 2.10 cents of property, they are not having the land in excess of the limit prescribed under the Act. It is also contended that the claim is made through his father and hence, the present order of the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained. All these contentions ought to have been considered by the Tribunal, after considering the evidence. 5. From the records it is seen that no evidence was adduced and no opportunity was given to the parties to adduce their respective evidence. In fact the learned counsel for the CRP 514/08 3 respondent could not refute the contention of the petitioners. Even though the order of the Tribunal says that evidence has been adduced, that can be seen to be untrue. Neither of the parties was called upon to adduce evidence. There is nothing to show that the posting on 16-6-2006 was for taking evidence. 6. Both the orders are clearly unsustainable in law. Hence, both the orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 7-4-2010. This revision petition is allowed as above. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.