IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 CRP.No. 2140 of 2001(C) ----------------------- OA.46/1991 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM AA.63/2000 of A.A.(LAND REFORMS),TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS 1 & 2/ADDL.RESPONDENTS 4 & 5: --------------------- 1. KUNJU KRISHNAN, AGED 69 S/O NANOO, PANDALA, PATTATHANAM EAST, KOLLAM – 21. 2. SMT.ROHINIKUTTY, AGED 64 W/O N.KUNJUKRISHNAN, PANDALA, PATTATHANAM EAST, KOLLAM – 21. BY ADV. SRI.L.GOPALAKRISHNAN POTTI SRI.A.DINESH RAO RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & 3RD RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. VALSALA, VALIYAMADATHODIYIL HOUSE, KALLUMTHAZHAM PO KILIKOLLUR, KOLLAM. 2. VAMAN ALIAS VAMADEVAN, VALIYAMADAMTHOZHPURAYIDATHIL, KILIKOLLUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT BLDG., TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2008, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 2158 OF 2001 ETC. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. 4617/01 IN CRP.2140/01 DISMISSED 28-7-08 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- CRP. Nos. 2140, 2154, 2158, 2159, 2160, 2161, 2162, 2163, 2164, 2165, 2343, & 2472 of 2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2008 O R D E R All these civil revision petitions are directed against the common order in twelve original applications submitted under section 80B of the Land Reforms Act wherein the original applicants claimed that they are kudikidappucars in property having re-survey No. 863/1 and 863/2 (old survey Nos. 5303, 5664, 5666) of Kilikollur Village of Kollam Taluk. The applications were filed in the year 1991 stating that they began their residence 20 years back. The specific claims in the original applications were that the applicants were residing for over 20 years. The revision petitioners who were the contesting respondents in the O.As. Contended that they obtained title to the properties as per document Nos.4227 and 4228 dated 15-6-1966, that they have not permitted anybody to occupy the land, that the properties were subject matter of partition suit O.S.56/66 of the Sub Court, Kollam, that the civil court appointed the Official Receiver as Receiver to be in possession of the suit properties and that the Receiver had taken possession of the properties. It was contended that the applicants are trespassers upon the properties subsequent to assumption of CRP. N0S. 2140/01 etc. -2- possession of the properties by the Official Receiver and that being trespassers upon the property and that too at a time when the property was custodia legis the petitioners are not entitled for any lawful right over the property. The Land Tribunal however, rejected the contentions of the revision petitioners and allowed the applications and directed assignment of land as applied for by the applicants in the O.As. 2. Sri.L.Gopalakrishnan Poti, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Sri.B.Mohanlal, learned counsel for the contesting party respondents and Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Govt. Pleader addressed me on behalf of their parties. 3. It was admitted that the property belonged to Valiyamadam Tarwad of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 8 in O.S. No. 56/66 of the Kollam Sub Court. It was evident that the Official Receiver was appointed by the Sub Court to take possession of the plaint schedule properties in that case. It was also evidence that item Nos.1, 12 and 14 of the plaint schedule properties were properties acquired by the revision petitioners by sale from the members of Valiyamadam Tarwad and those properties were also taken possession of by the Official Receiver as early as on 17-1-1970. Drawing my attention to the CRP. N0S. 2140/01 etc. -3- report of the Official Receiver Mr.Gopalakrishnan Poti submitted that it is crystal clear from the report and at the time when the Receiver took possession there were no building at all on these properties. The mistake committed by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority which has mechanically confirmed the order of the Land Tribunal is that they never referred to the judgment in the suit and the Receiver's report which had been produced and proved in the case. He submitted that after the Receiver assumed possession of the properties the Receiver leased out the concerned items to various lessees and the lease deeds executed by the lessees in favour of the Receiver were also produced before the Land Tribunal. These lease deeds would establish that the Receiver after assuming possession had been enjoying the properties. All these court records clearly establish that the claim of kudikidappu is not sustainable and that if at all the applicants came into occupation the same was only by trespass. Mr.Poti argued that there was absolutely no record to show that the applicants were in occupation of the properties prior to 1991. The claim in the applications originally filed in 1991 was that applicants obtained permission in 1971 ( ). It is only by way of an afterthought that the applicants sought for amendment of the CRP. N0S. 2140/01 etc. -4- applications. The Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority ought to have rejected applications for amendment holding that to be without bonafides. Mr.Poti argued that the appreciation of the evidence by the Land Tribunal as well as Appellate Authority was thoroughly erroneous. 4. The submissions of Mr.Poti were resisted by Mr.Mohanlal. Mr.Mohanlal submitted that within the contours of this court's revisional jurisdiction under section 103 there was no warrant at all for interfering with the concurrent findings entered by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority. Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar and having made thorough re- appreciation of the evidence which is available on record in these cases and particularly in view of the submissions of Mr.Poti that the Land Tribunal did not afford adequate opportunity to the revision petitioners for adducing evidence I am of the view that interests of justice demand that the original applications are remitted back to the Land Tribunal with appropriate directions for adduction of further evidence. The result of all these revision petitions therefore is as follows: All the revision petitions will stand allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority are set CRP. N0S. 2140/01 etc. -5- aside The appeals are remanded to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. The Appellate Authority will permit both sides in the appeals to adduce documentary evidence if documentary evidence is produced by the appellants or respondents within three months of receiving notice from the Appellate Authority pursuant to this order of remand. Such documentary evidence will be received to file as additional evidence on the respective side. Thereafter the appellate authority will hear both sides and take a fresh decision on the basis of the evidence already on record and further evidence to be adduced by the parties pursuant to this order. The Appellate Authority will ensure that the above directions are complied with within 5 months of the parties entering appearance pursuant to this order. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) CRP. N0S. 2140/01 etc. -6-