IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 1029 of 2010(O) ------------------------- PETITIONER/B PARTY: -------------------------------------- KAPALI NAMBOODHIRI, S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBOODHIRI (LATE), SEKHARA ILLAM, KARAYALAM AMSOM DESOM, KARAYALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RESPONDENTS/A PARTY & C PARTY: -------------------------------- 1. VADAVIL RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. VADAVIL PARVATHI AMMA, MIDHILA, POTHERIPARAMBU, MUNDAYAD P.O., KANNUR-670 547. 2. V.K.BHARATHI, W/O. VASUDEVAN NAMBIAR, KOUSTUBHAM, OORPAZHASI, VENGAD, KANNUR-670 612. 3. PULLIATHODAN BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, NANDINI NIVAS, VARAM, KANNUR-670 594. 4. VAROVAN VEETIL SOUDHAMINI, SUDHA SADHAN, MUNDAYAD P.O., KANNUR-670 597. 5. THE VARAM SASTHAMKOTAM SEVA SANKAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REGISTERED NO.S 557, P.O.VARAM, KANNUR-670 594. 6. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND TRIBUNAL, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 643. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.1029 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT B party in S.M.No.1032 of 2008 of the Land Tribunal, Kuthuparambu is the petitioner before me, apprehending a decision in the S.M proceeding against him without considering Ext.P7, application for appointment of a commission. S.M proceedings were initiated at the instance of respondent Nos.1 to 4 who claimed purchase certificate under Sec.72(f) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in respect of 4acres which petitioner says, belongs to the temple and hence it is exempted from tenancy. It is also the contention of petitioner that Ext.P6, report submitted by the Revenue Inspector is incomplete and in the circumstances petitioner was constrained to file Ext.P7, application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and measure the same. The case was posted on 08-12-2010. Apprehension of petitioner is that without disposing of Ext.P7, application the Land Tribunal may dispose of the SM proceedings against the petitioner. 2. If Ext.P7, application is not so far disposed of it is open to the petitioner to request the Land Tribunal to dispose of Ext.P7, O.P(C).No.1029 of 2010 : 2 : application. There is no reason to think that without disposing of that application, Land Tribunal will dispose of the proceedings. Permitting petitioner to urge the Land Tribunal to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7, application this petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-