Kerala High Court
K.R.Narayanan vs * 1. B.Kunhiraman Nair
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/29TH KARTHIKA 1934
CRP.No. 529 of 2003 (F/B)
-----------------------
S.M.NO.34/1997 of LAND TRIBUNAL (L.R) -II, KASARAGOD
A.A.NO.614/1997 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS), KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/A PARTY::
-----------------------------------------
K.R.NARAYANAN, S/O. RAMA MANIYANI,
RESIDING AT BETHURPARA IN KUTTIKOLE VILLAGE AND
POST, KASARAGOD TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT & STATE/B PARTY & STATE::
--------------------------------------------------
* 1. B.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, S/O. MALINGA NAIR,
RESIDING AT NARANGANGOD IN KUTTIKOLE VILLAGE AND
POST, KASARAGOD TALUK.(DIED LR'S IMPLEADED)
2. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
* SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENT 3 TO 10.
3. KAMMADATHU AMMA
4. PARVATHY
5. MADHAVAN
6. GANGADHARAN
7. CHAKRAPANI
8. SUSHEELA
9. SHASHI
10. PRASANNA
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENT 3 IS THE WIDOW AND RESPONDENTS 4 TO 10 ARE
CHILDREN OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT. ALL ARE RESIDING AT
"NARAYAMGOD IN KUTTIKOLE, KUTTIKOLE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARGOD TALUK".
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 10 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED
11/01/2002 IN I.A. 768/08 IN C.R.P. 529/03.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
. 20-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
LSN
K.VINOD CHANDRAN,J
-----------------------------------
C.R.P.NO. 529 of 2003
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2012
O R D E R
A suo-motu proceedings initiated under Sec.72C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was dropped by the Land Tribunal holding that the alleged cultivating tenant was not entitled for the assignment of the right title and interest over the property. Admittedly, the proceedings were initiated on the report of the Revenue Inspector. Before the Land Tribunal, the 'A' party was the revision petitioner herein who claimed assignment under the Act. The landlord was the 'B' party and notice were issued to both parties, as also public notice under Sec.72F. It is also specifically noticed that, the individual notice under Sec.72F(2) to the 'B' party was duly served. There was no appearance for the landlord.
2. The report of the Authorised Officer was marked as Ext.C1. The 'A' party examined himself as PW1 and contended that he had purchased the Kuzhikanam right to C.R.P.NO. 529 of 2003 : 2 : the afore mentioned property from one Kalyani Amma. The said Kalyani Amma was examined as PW2 and a further witness being a resident of the locality was also examined as PW3. PW2 in her deposition stated that in fact, lease was originally to her husband and that she has been in possession for the last few years. The assignment in favour of the 'A' party was also clearly admitted. PW3 also spoke of PW2 being in possession of the subject property. However, the Land Tribunal found that the statement of PW2 that the lease subsisted in the name of her husband was contrary to the claim made by the 'A' party and hence, closed the S.M. proceedings. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the Land Tribunal .
3. This Court is of the opinion that, the order of the Land Tribunal as confirmed by the first appellate authority is vitiated by total non-application of mind. True, PW2 stated that, the oral lease originally was in the name of her husband; but she had been in possession a few years prior C.R.P.NO. 529 of 2003 : 3 : to the assignment. That does not in any manner efface the tenancy in the subject land and there is absolutely no examination as to whether the husband of PW2 was alive, at the time when assignment was made. In such circumstances, the order of the Land Tribunal is liable to be set aside and I do so. The suo-motu proceedings shall be restored before the Land Tribunal and the parties shall be given liberty to adduce fresh evidence, if necessary. The 'A' party who is the revision petitioner herein shall appear before the Land Tribunal on 11/12/2012 and the Land Tribunal shall conclude the proceedings expeditiously.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed, remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal .
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE LSN