IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 193 of 2009() --------------------- AA.30/2003 of A.A.(LR),THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- RAJENDRAN, S/O. PUZHANKARA THANKAMMA, KHADIKUDAM DESOM,. KALLUR VADAKKUM MURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, P.O. KHADIKUDAM, KORATTY. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN SRI.JAYASANKER.B RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KARIMPANAKKAVU DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESENT MANAGER PANAMPILLY GOVINDA MENON, KALLUR VADAKKUM MURI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1) GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jma P. BHAVADASAN, J --------------------------- C.R.P.No.193 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010 O R D E R Aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2008 in AA.30/03 before the Appellate Authority, Under the Kerala (Land Reforms Act), the respondent come up in revision. 2. The petitioner claims that he had obtained a purchase certificate dated 13.3.1991 in suo-moto proceedings No.1141/78, 1142/78, 1143/1978 by order dated 10.3.1986 of Land Tribunal, Thrissur. The petitioner claims to be in absolute possession and enjoyment of 67 cents of land consisting of 251/2 cents of garden land in survey No.1285/P 91/2 cents Nilam in survey No.1284/P and 32 cents of Nilam in Survey No.1286/1 and 2 of Kalloor Vadakkummury Village. It is claimed that the purchase certificate was issued in pursuance of compromise, validly entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent CRP No.193/09 2 who was the land lord then. It is claimed that first respondent was represented by a lawyer. While the petitioner was enjoying the land conveyed to him, it is stated that the respondents began to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and that constrained the petitioner to file O.S.148/03 before the Munsiff Court, Chalakudy for an injunction. An interlocutory application was filed for interim relief and that was granted. Since the respondent in the I.A violated the order of injunction, proceedings initiated for that purpose also. 3. The first respondent who is the present Manager, filed a petition before the Appellate Authority against the order of granting purchase certificate by the Land Tribunal, Thrissur. There was a delay in filing the appeal, for which application for condonation of delay was filed. Despite the objection filed, without considering the objections from the side of the petitioner, delay was condoned and appeal was taken on file and later by the impugned order, the appeal CRP No.193/09 3 was remanded and directed the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the main basis on which Appellate Authority persuaded to remand the case was absence of compromise deed among the record, based on which purchase certificate said to be have been issued. It is pointed out that records are now available and it contains the compromise entered into between the parties and the matter requires reconsideration. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed that if it is being remanded for fresh consideration by the Appellate Authority for the issued raised by the appellant the objections raised by the respondent are also to be considered. 6. The files made available before this court were CRP No.193/09 4 perused. This court had opportunity to go through the file in which compromise is seen recorded and said to have issued in favour of the petitioner. It is contended before this court by the respondent that the Manager who is said to have signed the compromise deed has not signed and filed compromise. The very compromise is in dispute. All these are matters which are to be considered by the appellate authority who is a fact finding body. In the light of the above fact it is only proper that appellate authority reconsider the issue. 7. In the result, this revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to consider this matter afresh in the light of what has been stated above after hearing both sides. The Appellate Authority is directed to keep the file in safe custody. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. Sou.