IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 CRP.No. 2327 of 2000(B) ----------------------------------- A.A.NO.55/1998 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS), KANNUR. ....................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/3RD PARTY: ------------------------------------------------------------------ THALAYANDAKATH NABEESUMMA, W/O.MAMMI, RESIDING AT MORAZHA AMSOM, KANUL DESOM, BAKKALAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.V. SAINABA, W/O.BAPPANTAKATH MODIEEN KUTTY, RESIDING AT P.V. HOUSE, POONKAVU, P.O. CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. P.V. ABDUL KADER, S/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY, -DO-. 3. P.V. RAHMATHUNNISA, S/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY, -DO-. 4. KADAMBERI DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, P.O. KANUL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. THALAYANTAKATH ABDUL KADAR, THALAYANTAKATH TARWAD, MANGAD, P.O. KALLIASSERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. *SUPPLEMENTAL R6 IMPLEADED *6. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. * IS IMPLEADED AS SUPPLEMENTAL 6TH RESPONDENT IN C.R.P., VIDE ORDER IN I.A.1422/2006 DATED 28/08/2006. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR. ADDL. R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.K. SAJEEV. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.No. 2327 of 2000(B) ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.4679/2000 IN C.R.P.NO.2327/2000 DISMISSED 04/01/2011. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 2327 OF 2000 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Appellate Authority, Kannur in A.A.55/98. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the revision are stated as follows. The revision petitioner had intervened against the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Taliparamba in O.A.2692/76 whereby the Tribunal had conferred fixity of tenure on one Moideenkutty with respect to one acre of land comprised in R.Sy.No.62/3 of Morazha amsom. Admittedly the property belonged to the revision petitioner's family. The applicant in O.A.2692/76 is claiming the property under an oral lease from one Mammed Haji, father of the original revision petitioner. On the other hand, Moideenkutty would contend that he had CRP NO. 2327 of 2000 -:2:- moved an application O.A.2692/76 by virtue of which after enquiry the Land Tribunal has found him to be a tenant and had issued certificate of purchase. The revision petitioner also would contend that they had also moved an application before the same Tribunal as O.A.17653/75 with respect to one acre and 9 cents of land comprised in R.Sy.No.62/3. The Tribunal had issued a certificate of purchase in favour of them also. The revision petitioner would contend that the property belonged to him and there was a partition suit as O.S.897/59 which was compromised and a partition was entered into in the year 1970 whereby the properties were set apart to the share of the revision petitioner and subsequently there was another partition in the year 1980 where also the same property is allotted to her and thereby the revision CRP NO. 2327 of 2000 -:3:- petitioner is the person entitled to right and tenancy over the property. 2. On the contrary the applicant in O.A.2692/76 would contend that by virtue of an oral lease from Mammed Haji he had been in possession of the property and therefore by virtue of the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act he is entitled to fixity of tenure. It is also to be remembered that a suit was filed by the present revision petitioner as O.S.286/97 challenging the certificate of purchase issued in O.A.2692/76 on the ground of fraud, coercion etc. but the trial Court as well as the appellate Court did not grant a decree in favour of the present revision petitioners and therefore their attempt to declare the certificate of purchase as void has been negatived by the competent Courts. But CRP NO. 2327 of 2000 -:4:- that by itself does not show that they are having right over the property for the reason that the regular order in O.A.2692/76 is subject to challenge and that is what is challenged by the present revision petitioner herein. Now we are in a precarious state of affairs where the very same Tribunal had exercised its judicial power to grant certificate of purchase with respect to the same property in favour of two sets of persons. If there is other property or it is proved that there is other property to which a particular set relates then the matter will be different. So who is the tenant of the property has to be decided. So far as the present revision petitioners are concerned they are only having superior owner namely jenmi whereas the applicant in O.A.2692/76 has an intermediary as well as a superior landlord CRP NO. 2327 of 2000 -:5:- called jenmi. So with the junction of all these persons including the intervenor namely the present revision petitioners it is desirable that the matter is decided afresh by the Tribunal and that it requires evidence. Or in other words I make it very clear the person who is entitled to get fixity of tenure under the Land Reforms Act is to be decided in O.A.2692/76 with the necessary parties on records and for that purpose let all the parties be permitted to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. The Deputy Collector, Land Tribunal if any existing or any Tribunal which is conferred with that power is directed to decide the matter and it is also directed that they shall issue notice to all the parties CRP NO. 2327 of 2000 -:6:- fixing the date of appearance so that the parties can appear before the Court below. 3. I make it very clear that the purpose of remitting the matter to the Tribunal is to adjudicate on the question whether revision petitioners are the tenants of the property or the applicant in O.A.2692/76 is the tenant of the property and the approach of the Tribunal should be in that direction. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [true copy] P.A. To Judge. CRP NO. 2327 of 2000 -:7:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. No. 2327 OF 2000 = = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R 4th January, 2011.