Kerala High Court
Mohammed vs Koyappathodi Mecheri Mohammedkutty on 1 February, 2013
Author: S.S.Satheesachandran
Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/12TH MAGHA 1934
CRP.NO. 1451 OF 2004 (G)
------------------------
{IN SM.330/1996 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MALAPPURAM}
IN AA.101/2000 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR),THRISSUR)
REVISION PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
1. MOHAMMED, S/O.CHAKKALAMPARAMBATH
MOIDEEN,RESIDING AT CHERUVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM
P.O.CHERUVAYOOR IN ERNAD TALUK.
2. ABU, S/O.DO. RESIDING AT DO.
3. HUSSAIN, S/O. DO. R/AT DO.
4. AHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O. DO. R/AT. DO.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH,
& SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. KOYAPPATHODI MECHERI MOHAMMEDKUTTY,
S/O.KAMMATHKUTTY MARAKKAR @ BAVE HAJI
R/AT KADALUNDI P.O.,CHALIYAM,KOZHIKODE.
2. VAZHAKKAD DARUL-ULOOM ASSOCIATION
(REGD.) VAZHAKKAD,ERNAD TALUK.
3. ABDU, S/O.CHAKKALAMPARAMBATH MOIDEEN,
R/AT CHERUVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM
P.O.CHERUVAYOOR IN ERNAD TALUK.
4. ABDURAHIMAN, S/O. DO. R/AT. DO.
5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.POULOSE
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL
R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.REGI JOSEPH
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 01-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------
C.R.P.No.1451 of 2004
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2013
O R D E R
Petitioners are the appellants before the Appellate Authority, Thrissur. They preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Malappuram in a suo motu proceedings viz., S.M.No.330/96(a), assigning the right, title and interest of the land owner and intermediary to the 1st respondent recognising him as the cultivating tenant over 7.96 acres of land in R.S.No.349/pt of Vazhakkad Village involved in the aforesaid proceedings. Petitioners came to know of the assignment order only when they were served with a notice by the Taluk Surveyor and they are in actual possession of the land covered by the above suo motu proceedings was the case advanced to impeach the order of assignment in favour of the C.R.P.No.1451 of 2004 :: 2 ::
1st respondent filing the appeal. The property involved originally belonged to Chekidipetta Moyin, grandfather of the petitioners, who had obtained leasehold right over such property, and, after his death, the property was partitioned by the father of the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 under a registered partition deed and on such partition the property was set apart to the share of petitioners was the case canvassed to claim right, title and interest over the property. Before the Appellate Authority, no material was placed by petitioners to show that they have got any interest over the property assigned in favour of the 1st respondent by the Land Tribunal. The Appellate Authority after verification of the records of the Land Tribunal, which included materials produced by 1st respondent to substantiate his claim over his property and C.R.P.No.1451 of 2004 :: 3 ::
status as a cultivating tenant, concluded that the appeal was devoid of any merit and it was dismissed. Challenge is against that order of the Appellate Authority.
2. Though the learned counsel for petitioners canvassed some arguments that in the documents produced by the 1st respondent no portion of the property in R.S.No.349 is included, and the assignment was made over a property covered by the above re-survey number, I find, that challenge to impeach the orders of the Land Tribunal and also the Appellate Authority cannot be entertained in revision. Primary question to be gone into is whether the petitioners who were the appellants have shown any interest or right over the property in respect of which assignment was made without making them parties to the proceedings. Though the petitioners contended C.R.P.No.1451 of 2004 :: 4 ::
that they continued in possession of the property and under a registered partition deed the property which originally was under the enjoyment of their predecessor had been allotted towards their share, no material was tendered before the Appellate Authority to substantiate that claim. A final order passed in an appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal by a revision before this court can be entertained under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act only where it is shown that the Appellate Authority has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law. No such case has been made out by the petitioners to impeach the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing their appeal holding that the materials produced before the tribunal justifed the assignment of right, title and interest over the land covered by C.R.P.No.1451 of 2004 :: 5 ::
the proceedings in favour of the 1st respondent recognising his status as the cultivating tenant. Where petitioners have failed to show that they have any interest in the land assigned in favour of the 1st respondent, whatever be their challenges against the discrepancy in the survey number or any irregularity in the proceedings of the Land Tribunal, no interference with the orders of the Tribunal and Appellate Authority is permissible in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Revision lacks merits, and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/-
//true copy//