IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 113 of 2005() --------------------- AA.8/2002 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), ALAPPUZHA SM.88/1999 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THANKAPPAN S/O. NARAYANAN, MATTATHIL HOUSE, THALANADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT: APPELLANT ---------------------- GOPALAN NAIR, MELEVEETTIL HOUSE, THALANADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.6.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.286 OF 2005 IN C.R.P. NO. 113 OF 2005. DISMISSED 10.6.2008 Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 113 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the applicant in S.M. No.88 of 1999 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Kottayam. Suo motu proceedings was initiated by the Land Tribunal for assignment of right, title and interest of the landlords in respect of an extent of 04.70 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 234/5, Block No.59 of Poonjar Vadakkekara Village. Proceedings was initiated on the basis of Ext.C1 report. In Ext.C1 it is reported that the applicant came into possession of the land during the year 1962 and that he is a cultivating tenant entitled to assignment of the above land. Later, an Advocate Commissioner was deputed for enquiry and to submit a report. In the report, the Advocate Commissioner has stated that the building in the land was occupied by the applicant and it was constructed about 25 years back. The Land Tribunal extracted the oral evidence of the second respondent who was examined as RW.1. He had stated that the property in question was originally given to the applicant for constructing an "aala" and subsequently, the applicant was permitted to put up the C.R.P. NO.113/2005 2 residential building. On the basis of the evidence tendered by RW.1 and other materials on record including the report of the authorised officer, the Land Tribunal concluded that the applicant is a tenant within the meaning of Section 2(57) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and hence entitled to assignment of the land in question. 2. In the appeal, A.A. No.8 of 2002 filed by the landlord, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Land Tribunal and dismissed the application. The Appellate Authority mainly considered the contention of the applicant in a civil suit filed by the wife of the landlord. The Appellate Authority also referred to the deposition of the applicant wherein he had maintained the stand that he was not a cultivating tenant of the property, but the owner of the property and had purchased the same from the wife of the second respondent. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the total extent of the land including the property in question is 8.7 Ares and that out of the total extent, 4 Ares was purchased by the applicant from the wife of the second respondent. According to the learned counsel, there was some confusion regarding the statement made by the applicant in respect of the adjacent land which was purchased from the same person C.R.P. NO.113/2005 3 and being an illiterate person, the confusion crept in his deposition also. The Appellate Authority after referring to the aforesaid statements of the parties and after interpreting the meaning of the words in the decision reported in Joseph v. Thomas, 1971 K.L.T. S.N. P.3 held that the Land Tribunal was misled by similar representation made by the advocate. The Appellate Authority also held that the interpretation given by the Land Tribunal in the said decision is not correct. 4. The question as to whether the applicant is entitled to purchase the property in question was the only issue before the authorities below. For the purpose of deciding the above question, the authorities below ought to have concentrated on the basic fact as to whether the applicant is a cultivating tenant as defined under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. For that purpose alone, the materials on record should have been perused and highlighted in the judgment and order under challenge. The Appellate Authority also did not examine whether the testimony of the applicant referred to the adjacent land occupied by him or whether it related to the land in question. Both sides knew well that the parties are fighting for a particular piece of land which is lying adjacent to the land purchased by the applicant. The Appellate Authority did not go into the respective pleadings and evidence before reversing the order passed by the Land C.R.P. NO.113/2005 4 Tribunal. 5. In the facts and circumstances stated above, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the Land Tribunal. In view of the conflicting stand taken by the parties while in the box, it has become necessary for giving the parties an opportunity to adduce further evidence, if any. I, therefore, direct the Land Tribunal to consider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. In the result, the judgment under revision and the order passed by the Land Tribunal are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.113/2005 5 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 113/2005 O R D E R 10th June, 2008