IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 8 of 2006() ------------------- AA.150/2000 of A.A.(LR),THRISSUR OA.3156/1976 of LAND TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APLICANT IN O.A. AND APPELLANT IN AA: ---------------------------------------------------------- PILAKKADAN MOOSAN, S/O. MOIDEEN, ELANKUR P.O., ERNAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JYOTHISH.J.KALLINGAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A. AND RES.IN THE AA : ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. KAVUNGAL MANGALASSERI MANAKKAL DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRIPAD, ELANKUR P.O., ERNAD TALUK. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (SLAM), MANJERI. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 & 3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.8 OF 2006 -------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March 2010 ORDER Revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.04.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur. The revision petitioner applied for assignment of his tenancy rights over 2 acre 92½ cents of land comprised in resurvey No.714 of Elankoor village. The application was numbered as O.A No.3156 of 1976 on the file of Land Tribunal, Manjeri. The 1st respondent in that application was the landlord. The Tribunal after conducting enquiry arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner has tenancy right over only 64 cents of land and the rest of the land claimed by him had been taken possession by the State as excess land of the landlord in the ceiling proceedings. The Land Tribunal therefore ordered for assignment of 64 cents of land in favour of the revision petitioner and dismissed his claim for the rest of the land covered by the application. That order was challenged by the 1st respondent preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after considering the materials set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the case for fresh consideration. Pursuant to such remission, the Land Tribunal after having further enquiry found that the petitioner had moved a claim petition under Section 85(8) of the C.R.P No.8 OF 2006 Page numbers Land Reforms Act in respect of the very same land in the ceiling proceedings against the landlord and his claim had been rejected. It was also found that the challenge raised against the dismissal of his claim petition by way of appeal and revision had also been negatived. The application of the revision petitioner was therefore dismissed by order dated 27.12.1999 holding that he is not entitled to assignment of the land under Section 72(B) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Correctness of that order was impeached by the revision petitioner before the Appellate Authority in appeal A.A No.150 of 2000. The Appellate Authority after considering the submissions made with reference to the materials produced concurred with the view taken by the Land Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the admissibility of the revision. It is submitted that the revision petitioner has filed a suit before the civil court contending that the property covered by his O.A was not part of the excess area, possession of which is stated to have been taken by the State in the ceiling proceedings against the 1st respondent landlord. Though that suit after trial was dismissed and, later, the first appeal preferred against the decree of dismissal of the trial court also turned down, it is submitted by the counsel, a second appeal preferred against those decrees of the two courts below is C.R.P No.8 OF 2006 Page numbers pending consideration before this court. The revision after being admitted has to be disposed on merits after disposal of the second appeal is the plea canvassed by the counsel. Perusing the judgment of the Appellate Authority with that of the Land Tribunal with reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, I find whatever be the decision rendered in the second appeal it may not have much effect on the merit of the claim canvassed by the revision petitioner for assignment of the land covered by his application. Admittedly he had moved a claim petition under Section 85(8) of the Land Reforms Act in respect of the land covered by the proceedings and that application after enquiry was negatived. Appeal preferred against that claim was negatived by the Appellate Authority. Revision preferred against the dismissal of his claim was also negatived by this court. It is in respect of the same property covered by the claim petition he is agitating the matter by way of revision, after two authorities, the Land Tribunal and also the Appellate Authority, have found that he is not entitled to the assignment of the land covered by the proceedings. I do not find any merit in the revision, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE vdv //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE