IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23893 of 2010(O) -------------------------- RC.2/2009 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KASARGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- NOORUNNISHA ABDUL RAHIMAN (S.H.NOORUNISSA),D/O.S.H.SULAIMAN HAJI,AGED 40 YEARS, ARIYALIL,KUDU GRAMAM,KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE-BY AGENT-S.H.HAIDER, S/O.B.H.SULAIMAN HAJI,AGED 38 YEARS,ARIYALIL,KUDU GRAMAM,KASARAGOD TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. BY ADVS. SRI.B.KRISHNAN, SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- K.RAMANANDA MALLYA, S/O.PANDURANGA MALLYA, NO.29, 4TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR 3RD PHASE, BANGALORE.- PIN - 560 078. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.23893 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is in challenge of Ext.P2, order passed by the Land Tribunal, Kasaragod refusing to stay its proceeding on the ground that it has no authority to do so. Petitioner is defendant No.10 in a suit for partition. He, along with defendant Nos.11 to 13 resisted the suit on the strength of a purchase certificate obtained by their assignor. Trial court accepted the plea of tenancy and dismissed the suit. Respondent/plaintiff challenged that judgment and decree in this court in A.S.No.172 of 1995. This court found that the purchase certificate in favour of assignor of petitioner and other contesting defendants is invalid as it was issued without complying with Section 104 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The case was remitted to trial court for fresh decision. Trial court referred the issue of tenancy to the Land tribunal to enter a finding whether predecessor-in-interest of petitioner and defendant Nos.11 to 13 and following the assignment, themselves are tenants of the suit property. That reference proceeding is now pending in the Land Tribunal. In the meantime judgment and decree of this court is challenged by petitioner and others in the Supreme Court with an application to condone the delay. Learned counsel states that : 2 : delay in filing the appeal and special leave petition has been condoned as per Ext.P1, order. Application for stay of proceeding of the court below is pending consideration of the Supreme court. If in the meantime Land Tribunal proceeded with the proceedings on reference, it will cause difficulties and inconvenience to the petitioner and other contesting defendants. It is in that circumstance that petitioner and others filed application before the Land Tribunal to stay the proceedings. 2. Since request for stay is made in this proceedings it is not necessary for me to go into the question whether land Tribunal was competent to stay its proceedings. Admittedly judgment and decree of this court in A.S.No.172 of 1995 based on which reference is made is pending consideration before the Supreme Court. In the circumstance, it is only just and proper that Land Tribunal keep the proceedings in abeyance for some time so that in the meantime it is open to the petitioner and other contesting defendants to seek stay from the Supreme Court. Resultantly this writ petition is disposed of in the following lines: Proceedings in R.C.No.2 of 2009 of the Land tribunal, Kasaragod will stand in abeyance for a period of two months from this day or until the Supreme Court : 3 : passed appropriate order on the application for stay, whichever is earlier. THOMAS P JOSEPH JUDGE Sbna/