IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 79 of 2011() -------------------- AA.59/2006 of A.A.(LR), KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT NO.1 ------------------------------------ ASHOKAN, S/O. PERACHIKUTTY, NEDUKANDIYIL HOUSE, VENGERI.P.O, NEDUNGOTTU AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS, RESPONDENT NO.2 AND STATE ---------------------------------------------------- 1. KUNDUR SREEBHAGYA, W/O. LAGE HARSHANANDAN, NEDUNGOTTUR AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 010. 2. KUNDUR KRISHNA PRIYA (MINOR), AGED 11 YEARS, D/O. LATE HARSHANANDAN, NEDUNGOTTUR AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 PIN 673 010. 3. N. SIDHARTHAN, S/O. PERACHIKUTTY, NEDUKANDIYIL HOUSE, VENGERI.P.O, NEDUNGOTTUR AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 010. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.B.RAMANAND THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- C.R.P.No.79 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011 O R D E R The predecessor in interest of the petitioner was shown as the cultivating tenant in S.M.C.69 of 1997 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode. The S.M. Case was disposed of as per the order dated 12.11.1997 in favour of Perachikutty, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner. The respondent in S.M.C.69 of 1997 was Divakaran Moosad. 2. It would appear that respondents 1 and 2 herein filed O.S.No.607 of 2003 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode in which the Revision Petitioner was one of the defendants. It would appear that the purchase certificate in S.M.C.69 of 1997 was relied on by the petitioner in the written statement filed by him in O.S.No.607 of 2003. CRP No.79/2011 2 Thereupon, respondents 1 and 2 filed A.A.No.59 of 2006 on the file of the court of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kannur, challenging the order in S.M.C.69 of 1997. The Appellate Authority, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, thought it fit that a consideration of the case on the merits is required and for that purpose it is necessary to remand the case to the Land Tribunal. It was noticed that the Land Tribunal did not consider the contentions which were raised in the appeal filed by respondents 1 and 2 and therefore, the decision of the Land Tribunal was not on the merits of the contentions put forward by the parties. The petitioner and the other legal representative of Perachikutty on the one hand and respondents 1 and 2 herein on the other hand claimed rival title and both parties say that they are the cultivating tenants. That is a matter to be decided by the Land Tribunal on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence. The Appellate Authority thought that in these circumstances, a remand of the case to the Land Tribunal was CRP No.79/2011 3 essential. 3. The appellants before the Appellate Authority, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein, were not parties before the Land Tribunal. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the judgment of the Appellate Authority, remanding the case to the Land Tribunal, is erroneous and illegal. No grounds are made out for interference in the revision. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl