IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1393 of 2000(F) ---------------------------------- AA.599/1997 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS), KANNUR. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ POOTHANARI ALAVIKUTTY HAJI, S/O. VEERANKUTY HAJI, RESIDING AT THRIPPANACHI AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O. THRIPPANACHI, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHIANATHA MENON. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANNUNGACHALI UMMACHUMMA, D/O. KOMUKUTTY HAJI, PULPATTA AMSOM AND VALAMANGALAM DESOM, P.O. OLAMATHIL, MONGAM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MANNUNGACHALI THITHI UMMA, D/O. KOMUKUTTY HAJI, PULPATTA AMSOM AND VALAMANGALAM, P.O. OLAMATHIL, MONGAM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MANNUNGACHALI KUNHATUMMA, D/O. KOMUKUTTY HAJI, PULPATTA AMSOM AND VALAMANGALAM, P.O. OLAMATHIL, MONGAM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. MANNUNGACHALI PATHUMMA, D/O. KOMUKUTTY HAJI, PULPATTA AMSOM AND VALAMANGALAM, P.O. OLAMATHIL, MONGAM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. C.R.P. NO. 1393/2000-F: 5. MANAGER, THRIPPANACHI DEVASWOM, THRIPPANACHI AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.THRIPPANACHI, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR) SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR, SMT.PRABHA R.MENON, SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, ALONG WITH C.R.P. NO. 1394/2000, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 1393 & 1394 OF 2000 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008. O R D E R C.R.P. 1393/00 is preferred against the order of the Appellate Authority, Kannur in A.A.599/97 and C.R.P. 1394/00 is preferred against the order of the Appellate Authority in A.A.598/97. The basic facts necessary for the disposal of the revision petitions are stated as follows. 2. The revision petitioner filed an application for purchase of 10 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.510/2 before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal obtained a report from the Special Revenue Inspector who reported that the entire extent, i.e., of 27 cents comprised in R.S.510/2 has been assigned by the Land Tribunal in favour of respondent in the revision petition as per O.A.4676/76. When it was so dismissed, the revision petition preferred two appeals before the Appellate Authority one against the dismissal of SM 71/97 and the other against the issuance of certificate of purchase in O.A. 4676/76. Since appeal was filed in 1997 only, along CRP NOs. 1393 & 1394 of 2000 -:2:- with OA 4676/06 he also filed applications for condoning the delay if there is any. 3. At the out set it has to be stated that the present revision petitioner was not a party before the Land Tribunal in O.A. 4676/76. Therefore one cannot affix knowledge of certificate of purchase on him and this Court in very many decisions held that a certificate of purchase issued under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act without a personal notice under Section 72(F)(3) of the K.L.R. Act cannot be binding on the party against whom it is used if there is no service of notice. Just because in an application filed earlier certificate of purchase has been issued, it does not conclude that the person who is claiming later is not a cultivating tenant of the property. The question whether the revision petitioner is entitled to 10 cents of land as a cultivating tenant is a matter that has to be adjudicated. Since there are two appeals now it is desirable that the Appellate CRP NOs. 1393 & 1394 of 2000 -:3:- Authority hears the appeals on merits and dispose of them in accordance with law. The delay though long cannot be stated to be a delay for the reason it is not an order with him on the party array and the party has come to know about the order only when his SM 71/97 was dismissed. Therefore I set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and remit the case back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration. The Appellate Authority shall permit both the sides to produce documentary evidence as well and in case it feels that besides documentary evidence, oral evidence is required, it will also remit the case back to the Land Tribunal with a specific direction to the Land Tribunal to consider the question of tenancy claimed by both the parties. It goes without saying that both the cases have to be tried jointly otherwise it will be difficult for the parties to adduce evidence as one party is not the respondent in the other and vice versa. The documents produced are directed to be taken CRP NOs. 1393 & 1394 of 2000 -:4:- back by the revision petitioner so that he can produce it before the Court below and it can be considered by the Appellate Authority after hearing the objections filed by other side. The Appellate Authority is directed to issue notice regarding the date of appearance of parties on receipt of records. The C.R.Ps. are disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- CRP NOs. 1393 & 1394 of 2000 -:5:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. Nos. 1393 & 1394 OF 2000 = = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R 4th January, 2008.