IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRP.No. 442 of 2005() --------------------- AA.146/1998 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS),TRIVANDRUM SM.21/1992 of LAND TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------------- C.V.GANGADHARAN NAIR, S/O. VENU PILLAI, ADVOCATE, BACK TO AMERICAN INSTITUTE BUILDINGS, VANCHIYOOR, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.RAGHUNATH RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/STATE -------------------------------------------------- 1. THANKAMMA KAMALAKSHY PULLUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.G.SUDHEER SRI.V.SURESH R2 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEV THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------- C.R.P.No. 442 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 ORDER In this Revision Petition the order passed by the Appellate Authority (LR), Trivandrum in A.A.No. 146/1998, is under challenge. 2. The first respondent's mother faced suo moto proceeding No.21/1992 before the Land Tribunal for assignment of landlords right title and interest over 9 cents comprised in survey No.3131-B of Kowdiar Village under Section 72-C of the K.L.R.Act. The first respondent's mother based her claim on an unregistered lease deed dated 15.11.1960 alleged to have been executed by Gowrikutty Amma and her husband, who are the maternal grand parents of the Revision Petitioner. The original respondent who was the mother of the Revision Petitioner denied the lease deed and contended that the lease deed produced is a false and fabricated document. It is also pointed out that the petitioner the claimant, had filed an application for purchase of 3 cents as kudikidappu. It is further contended that the original applicant had filed O.A.1563/1972 claiming kudikidappu right over the building in the property and the original application was allowed. 3. The Land Tribunal after taking the evidence dismissed the suo moto proceedings. The first respondent carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority in A.A.No.146/1998. The Appellate C.R.P.No. 442 of 2005 2 Authority accepted Ext.A1 and held that the respondent has fixity of tenure over the property. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner pointed out that the the Lower Appellate Authority was not justified in accepting the lease deed without proof of deed provided and especially when it is alleged to be fabricated and forged document. There was absolutely no evidence before the Appellate Authority to hold in favour of the appellant. At least some evidence should have been insisted on before the Appellate Authority and decided in favour of the appellant. 5. There seems to be considererable force in the above submissions. It is true that the revenue inspectors report is to be in favour of the applicants but that may not be sufficient, especially, when the contentions in the lease deed produced is a fabricated one. Unless the respondents prove the tenancy set up by them by adducing acceptable evidence, she is not entitled to the assignment especially when the Land Tribunal dismissed the claim. It is to be noted that the claimant had obtained the kudikidappu right in a previous application. In the result, the C.R.P. is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration in the light of what has been stated above. The parties shall be at liberty to adduce evidence if they so choose. The parties shall appear before the Land Tribunal on 05.04.2011. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln