IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 3679 of 2011(O) ---------------------------------- OA.134/2004 of LAND TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM ............................................. PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANTS : ------------------------------------------- 1. PRABHAVATHY AMMA, W/O.GOPI, PRABHA VILASOM, VP.1/50, OPPOSITE TO PETROL PUMP, A.K.GOPALAN NAGAR ROAD, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. R. GOPI, S/O.RAJAPPAN, PRABHA VILASOM, VP.1/50, OPPOSITE TO PETROL PUMP, A.K. GOPALAN NAGAR ROAD, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. R.T. PRADEEP SRI. SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER & STATE : -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MARY IRIN @ RANI MATHEW @ RANI ABEY VARGHESE, PANATHIL HOUSE, AKG NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K. C. VINCENT THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DCS OP(C) No. 3679 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :- EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF ORDER DATED 16/2/2006 IN OA 134/2006 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/9/2007 OF APPELLANT AUTHORITY LA) ALAPPUZHA. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE IN CRP NO.514/2008 DATED 10/3/2010. EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE NOTICE BY THE REVENUE INSPECTOR DATED 1/7/2010 . EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 3/11/2010 BY THE REVENUE INSPECTOR EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17/2/2011 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF THE OBJECTION NIL DATED OF PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P8. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27/9/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P9. COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 10/10/2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10. COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.2/2011 IN OA 134/2004 BY LAND TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : - NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DCS THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3679 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioners are the applicants in O.A.No.134 of 2004 of the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, “the Tribunal”). They preferred application for purchase of kudikidappu under Section 80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, “the Act”). At one stage, proceedings came to this Court in the form of C.R.P.No.514 of 2008 and this Court by order dated 10.03.2010 set aside orders in the proceeding and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision. Tribunal was directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with the law at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of order dated 10.03.2010. Thereafter Tribunal appointed the Revenue Inspector to submit report regarding various aspects relevant for disposal of the application under Sec.80B of the Act. According to the petitioners, the Revenue Inspector gave notice to the petitioners directing them to produce certain documents but, without giving any further information regarding the materials collected by him. The Revenue Inspector submitted a report which according to the petitioners is in violation of Rules 138 to 141 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules (for short, “the Rules”). Thereon petitioners filed application to examine the Revenue Inspector as a witness. That application was dismissed by Ext.P10, order. In Ext.P10, order Tribunal observed that this Court by Ext.P3, order dated 10.03.2010 (referred above) had directed disposal of the proceedings within six months; cost of OP(C) No.3679/2011 2 construction of the ‘hut’ in question and rent are assessed by the Revenue Inspector on local inspection, no material has been produced by petitioners to show that the said valuation is wrong and that in Paily Thomman v. Thomman Thomman (1984 KLT SN.34) this Court held that report of the Revenue Inspector could be used as evidence without examining him. The Tribunal also went on to say that the question whether the Revenue Inspector is to be summoned as a witness would arise only after petitioners adduced evidence to show the actual cost of construction. In that view the application is dismissed by Ext.P10, order which is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel has contended that the Tribunal was under a wrong impression that petitioners could not summon the Revenue Inspector at any point of time before the actual cost of construction is proved by them. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Abbas v. Taluk Land Board (1987 (2) KLT 533) and the observations made therein. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to Secs.105 and 105(A) of the Act to draw a distinction between the said provisions. Under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.105(A) of the Act, the Tribunal or Land Board or the Taluk Land Board may depute any officer appointed under Sub-sec.(1) to make local enquiry, investigation or inspection and to collect any data, and the report and the records submitted by such officer may be used without examining him as evidence in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal or Land Board or the Taluk Land Board OP(C) No.3679/2011 3 (as the case may be). Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.105A of the Act empowers such authorities to summon and examine the Officer referred to in Sub-sec.(2) if it thought fit. 3. In the decision referred by learned counsel, it is observed in paragraph 8 that report of the authorized officer (brought under Sec.105(A) of the Act), in the absence of any challenge against the same either from the party concerned or from the authority which deputed the authorized officer to submit the report, must in the light of provisions contained in Secs.105 and 105(A) read with Rules 138 to 141 of the Rules be treated as conclusive proof of the matters stated therein. In paragraph 9, it is observed that the above does not mean that the Tribunal, Land Board or the Taluk Land Board has no power to reject the report at all. The said authorities undoubtedly have the power to reject the report provided that the authorized officer being cross examined such authorities are satisfied that the report do not reflect the true and correct state of affairs. In the absence of any such examination, the report submitted by the authorized officer requires to be accepted. 4. Going by the above decision as also Sub-secs.(2) and (3) of Sec.105(A) of the Act it is clear that report of the authorized officer under Sec.105(A) of the Act forms part of the record and it is within the power of the authority concerned to accept such report in the absence of challenge either from the parties concerned or the authority are satisfied with correctness of the report. In otherwords the party who is dissatisfied with the report is entitled to OP(C) No.3679/2011 4 summon the officer concerned and examine him on the correctness of the report he has furnished. 5. That right of the petitioners need not be curtailed by saying that they could examine the Revenue Inspector only on their adducing evidence to show the actual cost of construction of the building in question. That part of the order therefore, cannot be sustained. 6. But it is not necessary that petitioners must start with summoning the Revenue Inspector and examine him. Petitioners can adduce their evidence and in the course of such evidence, summon the Revenue Inspector also on their side and examine him on the correctness of the report as they being pleaded. 7. Learned Government Pleader has pointed out that in Ext.P3, order this Court has directed the Tribunal to dispose of the proceeding within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. I make it clear that if in view of the proceedings Tribunal has to undertake on account of adducing of evidence and summoning of Revenue Inspector for examination the Tribunal is not able to comply with the direction in Ext.P3, order the Tribunal or the parties concerned have to request this Court for extension of time having regard to the directions contained in this judgment. Resultantly this Original Petition is allowed to the extent that the observation made by the Tribunal that the question of summoning the Revenue Inspector would arise only after petitioners adduced evidence to show the actual OP(C) No.3679/2011 5 cost of construction of the building is set aside. It is made clear that in the course of their evidence it will be open to the petitioners to summon the Revenue Inspector as their witness and examine him touching upon correctness of the report he has submitted. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks