IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 334 of 2009() --------------------- {A.A.NO.562/1997 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR S.M.P.No.1861/76 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, VI, KANNUR} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/LRS OF DECEASED ASARI RAMAN -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KALYANI, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.LATE ASARI RAMAN, RESIDING AT MEENGOTH,KUMBLA, PULLUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 2. KAMMADATHU, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.LATE ASARI RAMAN AND W/O.GOVINDAN ASARI, PARAPPA HOUSE, VETTATHALA,PULLUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 3. MADHAVI, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.LATE ASARI RAMAN AND W/O.ALAMI, RESIDING AT MEETHALE VEEDU, MANIKKOT, PUDUKKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 4. DAMODHARAN ASARI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE ASARI RAMAN AND KALLYANI, RESIDING AT MEENGOTH,KUMBLA,PULLUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 5. GOPALAN ASARI, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.LATE ASARI RAMAN,MENIKKOT THAYALE VEEDU, PUDUKKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD. 6. BABU ASARI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE ASARI RAMAN AND KALLYANI, RESIDING AT MEENGOTH,KUMBLA,PULLUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. CRP.No. 334 of 2009 :: 2 :: 7. KARTHIYANI, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O LATE ASARI RAMAN AND W/O SASI ASARI, RESIDING AT MEENGOTH,KUMBLA,PULLUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 8. NARAYANAN ASARI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.LATE ASARI RAMAN AND KALLYANI, RESIDING AT MEENGOTH,KUMBLA,PULLUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. UPENDRA KESAVA TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, IREVILKESAVA VAZHANNAVAR, IREVIL, IREVIL.P.O., V IA. ANANDASRAMAM, KASARAGOD. 3. PADIYIL KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 64 YEARS, *(DIED) S/O.LATE KOMAN ASARI, RESIDING AT PADIYIL MEETHALE VEEDU,PUDUKKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. (DIED). 4. MANI, AGED 44 YEARS,S/O.LATE KOMAN ASARI RESIDING AT MENIKOT MEETHALE VEEDU, PUDUKKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 5. PADIYIL NARAYANI, D/O.VELLACHI, PADIYIL MEETHALE VEEDU,PUDUKKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUJK. 6. PADIYIL BABU, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.LATE KOMAN ASARI, PADIYHIL MEETHALE VEEDU, PUDUKKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 7. KARICHI, D/O.CHOYICHI,MEENGOTH, TTANNITHODU,PUTHUR, HOSDURG TALUK. CRP.No. 334 of 2009 :: 3 :: 8. KUNHAMMA, AGED 69 YEARS,D/O. LATE MANI AND W/O.LATE KANNAN KELORMAN ASARI, RESIDING AT VADAKKANPARAMBU,PUDUKKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 9. ADDL.R9 - KANNNAN, S/O.LATE PADIYIL KUNHIKANNAN, PADIYIL HOUSE, PUDUKKAI.P.O.,NELESHWAR(VIA), KASARAGOD. ADDL.9TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED AS LEGEL REPRESENTATIVE AS PER ORDER DATED 19/1/09 IN IA 124/2009. R4 TO R6 & R8 BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.REKHA C.NAIR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.334 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23 rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order dated 10.12.2004 in A.A.No.562/97 passed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kannur. The appellants, third parties to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, challenged the order of that tribunal issuing patta over 2.57 acres of land in favour of the respondents in the appeal with a petition to condone the delay of 21 years in filing such an appeal. The 1st respondent in the appeal filed objections to the petition to condone delay. The learned Appellate Authority after considering the objections filed by the appellant and hearing the counsel on both sides set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and cancelled the patta issued in favour of the 1st respondent. The case was remitted back to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal under the orders issued by the Appellate C.R.P.No.334 of 2009 :: 2 :: Authority. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. The Appellate Authority, as seen from the impugned order, had condoned the delay in preferring the appeal and then proceeded to consider the appeal on its merits. The case canvassed by the appellants as seen from the impugned order is that the property involved in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal originally belonged to one Raman Keloma, the common predecessor of the appellants and also the 1st respondent. Suppressing that fact, the 1st respondent obtained a patta over that land was the ground canvassed for impeaching the patta issued by the Land Tribunal in favour of the 1st respondent. The Appellate Authority, taking note that there are some mistakes with respect to the survey numbers of the properties covered by the proceedings in the Land Tribunal with C.R.P.No.334 of 2009 :: 3 :: that of a report preferred by an advocate commissioner in a suit filed by the appellants as plaintiffs against the 1st respondent formed a conclusion that there was grave discrepancy with respect to the properties included in the proceedings of the Land Tribunal. Another reason that appeared to have weighed with the Appellate Authority to hold that the order of the Land Tribunal was not proper was that no report from a Revenue Authority was collected by the tribunal before issuing an order holding that the first respondent is entitled to a purchase certificate over the land as a tenant in occupation of such land. The Appellate Authority, on such conclusions, as indicated above, allowed the appeal quashing the order of the Land Tribunal and also patta issued in favour of the 1st respondent and remitting the case for fresh disposal. The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the 1st respondent, who had been impleaded as C.R.P.No.334 of 2009 :: 4 :: additional respondents in the appeal consequent to the death of the 1st respondent. 4. Though the decision of the Appellate Authority is styled as an order, in effect, it is a judgment by which the decision of the Land Tribunal was quashed and an order remitting the case was made. Challenge is against the final order disposing the appeal, but, the question of propriety and correctness of the order of the Appellate Authority condoning the delay of 21 years in entertaining the appeal, in the given facts of the case, emerge for consideration. It is open to the revision petitioner to canvass the correctness of the condonation fo delay in the final judgment disposing the appeal. In fact, no notice on the petition for condonation of delay was given to the respondents before entertaining the appeal is the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. Whatever that be, it is seen that C.R.P.No.334 of 2009 :: 5 :: the appellants have filed a suit for partition as O.S.No.384/97 contending that the properties involved in the suit are different from the properties covered by the patta issued in favour of the 1st respondent. That case, it appears, was canvassed on the premise that there is some discrepancy in the survey numbers of the property with those covered by the patta issued by the Land Tribunal. The property originally belonged to common predecessor Raman Kolorman and after his death, it devolved upon them and also the 1st respondent in whose favour the patta has been issued by the Land Tribunal was their case. When that be the case, the discrepancy in the survey number of the properties projected in the suit and also in the appeal has to be given the least significance. It is also seen that the definite case of the appellants was that on the death of Raman Kolorman, the property devolved upon all the members of the joint family, but the first C.R.P.No.334 of 2009 :: 6 :: respondent, suppressing that fact had obtained patta in his favour. If the property was actually held by the joint family, the issue of the patta in favour fo any member even if claimed in individual capacity, would be only as a nominee for and on behalf of the family. In such a case any other member of the family is entitled to seek appropriate relief for devision of the property and separate possession on the basis of the patta issued by the Land Tribunal. However, such a challenge cannot be set up as a ground for impeaching the validity of the patta, two decades after its issue, on the ground that the patta had been obtained by fraudulent means. The Appellate Authority has taken into account innocuous circumstances a to the discrepancies of the survey number of the property in the commission report collected in a civil case with that of the proceedings of the Land Tribunal as material factors to quash a patta issued by the Land C.R.P.No.334 of 2009 :: 7 :: Tribunal two decades before. The case canvassed by the appellants in the appeal that they came to know of the issue of the patta only after such a long period when a suit was filed by the 1st respondent as plaintiff before the Sub Court cannot be accepted on its face value. It is evident that the Appellate Authority, without justifiable the cause, had condoned the delay in entertaining a challenge against a patta issued by the Land Tribunal, after a span of two decades, and ordering for quashing the patta and remitting the case for fresh disposal. The reasons set out by the Appellate Authority in the order for interfering with the orders of the Land Tribunal at a belated stage nearly two decades after the passing of such order are found to be unworthy of any merit. The order of the Appellate Authority is set aside, directing restoration of the orders of the Land Tribunal in S.M.C.No.1861/76. Appeal preferred by the C.R.P.No.334 of 2009 :: 8 :: respondent before the Appellate Authority shall stand dismissed. Revision is disposed of as above. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.