IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 186 of 2009 --------------------- AA.28/2001 of A.A.(LR),THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2.3.2000 IN SM.879/1988 of LAND TRIBUNAL, MANJERI (SM.231,232,233/1992) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. KOLATHUMTHODI PATHUMMA, IRIVETTY AMSOM, KAVANUR VILLAGE,ERNAD TALUK. 2. KOLATHUMTHODI ALEEMA, DO..DO.. 3. KOLATHUMTHODI MOHAMMED ALI DO..DO... 4. KOLATHUMTHODI ABDURAHIMAN DO..DO.. 5. KOLATHUMTHODI ABDUL KAREEM DO..DO. 6. KOLATHUMTHODI ABDUL SALAM DO..DO.. 7. KOLATHUMTHODI JAMEELA, DO..DO... 8. KOLATHUMTHODI MOHAMMED, DO..DO.. 9. KOLATHUMTHODI ABDURAHIMAN DO..DO.. 10. KOLATHUMTHODI PATHUMMA, DO..DO.. 11. KOLATHUMTHODI SUHARA, DO...DO... (CNTD....2) CRP.No. 186 of 2009 ::2:: 12. KOLATHUMTHODI SAKEENA, DO..DO... 13. KOLATHUMTHODI AYISAKUTTY DO..DO.. 14. KOLATHUMTHODI MUHAMMED.P.P. DO....DO.. 15. KOLANGARATHODI AMEENA,DO..DO... 16. KOLANGARATHODI PATHUMMA, DO..DO... 17. KOLANGARATHODI AYISA P.P. DO..DO... 18. KOLANGARATHODI MARIYUMMA P.P. DO...DO... 19. KOLANGARATHODI ALI, DO..DO... 20. KOLANGARATHODI MOHAMEED DO..DO... 21. KOLANGARATHODI UMMER, DO...DO... 22. KOLANGARATHODI MARIYUMMA, DO..DO... BY ADV. MR.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON MR.M.V.ANANDAN MS.DAISY IRENE DANIEL MR.C.J.SOLOMAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. VENAZHIKOTTU KAVUNGAL MADATHIL DAMODARAN NAIR,S/O.LAKSHMI AMMA, IRIVETTY AMSOM, KAVANUR VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK. * 2. VENAZHIKOTTU KAVUNGAL MADATHIL MEENAKSHI AMMA, D/O. LAKSHMI AMMA, IRIVETTY AMSOM,KAVANUR VILLAGE,ERNAD TALUK. (DIED) NO LRs * 3. VENAZHIKOTTU KAVUNGAL MADATHIL LAKSHMI AMMA,D/O. LAKSHMI AMMA, IRIVETTY AMSOM,KAVANUR VILLAGE,ERNAD TALUK. (DIED) LRs RECORDED (CNTD....3) CRP.No. 186 of 2009 ::3:: 4. VENAZHIKOTTU KAVUNGAL MADATHIL SANKARAN, S/O. LAKSHMI AMMA, IRIVETTY AMSOM,KAVANUR VILLAGE,ERNAD TALUK. 5. K.SARAFULLA @ ASHRUF S/O.KODITHODIKA IBRAHIM RAHMALTHULLA PULPETTA AMSOM, CHERUPUTHUR DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. 6. K.ISAHAQ S/O. KODITHODIKA IBRAHIM RAHMALTHULLA PULPETTA AMSOM, CHERUPUTHUR DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. 7. HAJIRA, W/O.PULIKKAL PAMPENGAL UNNIMOHAMMED ASHRUFF NEDIYIRUPPU AMSOM, DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. 8. RAMLATH W/O.PANTHAPILAM MOHAMMED ALI NEDIYIRUPPU AMSOM, DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. 9. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHEIF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *IT IS RECORDED THAT 1. R2 DIED AND THERE ARE NO LEGAL HERIS AND 2. R3 DIED AND R1 AND 4 ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS VIDE ORDER DTD.4.12.2009 IN MEMO WITH CF.NO.4533/2009 IN C.R.P.NO.186/2009. ADV. MR.K.RAVEENDRAN FOR R5,6,7 & 8 MR.P.S.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R5,6,7 & 8 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN FOR R9 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.186 of 2009 - B --------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order dated 8.9.2008 in A.A.No.28 of 2001 passed by the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur, setting aside a common order passed in S.M.Nos.879/88, 231/92, 232/92 & 233/92 rendered by the land Tribunal, Manjeri. The Land Tribunal had dropped the S.M proceedings holding that the persons proceeded as the cultivated tenants have not established their status of fixity of tenure over the properties covered by the proceedings. In the appeal preferred by the petitioners in the S.M proceedings, the appellate authority reversed the order of dropping the proceedings and remitted the cases for fresh consideration and disposal after issuing notice to all the interested parties. Revision petitioners are F. form parties who resisted the claim of tenancy canvassed by the petitioners in the S.M proceedings who too, it is seen from the order of the Appellate Authority have claimed right over the properties as cultivating tenants. The S.M proceedings initiated C.R.P.No.186 of 2009 2 against the aforesaid parties who have filed the present revision, it is seen, had been dismissed by the Land Tribunal. Now the challenge raised in the revision is against the order of remand passed by the appellate authority directing the Land Tribunal to reexamine the matter afresh after hearing all interested parties. After going through the order of the Land Tribunal and also that of the Appellate Authority, I find there is no scope for interfering with the order of remand in exercise of revision jurisdiction vested with this Court. Whatever challenges petitioners have to resist the claim of the claimants they can canvass it before the Land Tribunal. Revision is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-