Kerala High Court
Leelamma Jacob vs Narayanan Ravindran
Author: Thomas P. Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013/3RD MAGHA 1934
OP(C).No. 312 of 2013 (O)
-------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SM.12/2004 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR),
ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
LEELAMMA JACOB, AGED 65 YEARS
MAMPALLIL,BRAHMAMANGALAM,CHEMBU
VAIKOM,DIST KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM
SRI.M.MUKESH
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. NARAYANAN RAVINDRAN,
VALIYAPARAMBU VEETTIL,PUNNAPPARA
DIST. ALAPPUZHA-688 004.
2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS), ALAPPUZHA-688 001.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-01-2013, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No. 312 of 2013 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTED 30.9.1987 IN OS NO.153/1981.
EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20.5.2010 IN S.A.523/1996.
EXHIBIT P3: A RUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.4.2012 IN S.M.12/2004
EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL NO.A.A. 34/2012 DATED JUNE 2012.
EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DTED 2.1.2013 SENT BY THE
PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
ds
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P.(C). No. 312 OF 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner claims to have purchased 26 cents in Survey No. 85/12-1 of Punnapra Village as per document No. 391 of 1981 from one Lakshmikutty Amma. First respondent raised a claim over the said property as per an agreement for sale (allegedly) executed with the said Lakshmikutty. Petitioner filed O.S. No. 153 of 1981 in the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha for fixation of boundary and for prohibitory injunction against the first respondent and obtained a decree on 30.09.1987.
2. The appeal and second appeal arising therefrom at the instance of the first respondent were dismissed. While so, first respondent moved the Land Tribunal, Cherthala (for short 'the Tribunal') claiming fixity of tenure for the above said property as if he is a cultivating tenant. The Tribunal registered the S.M. proceedings No. 12 of 2004. This Court in the judgment in O.P.(C) No. 100 of 2012 directed speedy disposal of the S.M. proceedings. The S.M. Proceeding was dismissed on 10.04.2012. First respondent has filed appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Alappuzha (for short 'the Appellate Authority') as A.A. No. 34 of 2000. The prayer in this Original Petition is to quash Ext.P4, appeal before the Appellate Authority.
3. Learned counsel contends that the contention first respondent now raises in the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority are contradictory to the contention he had raised in O.S.No. 153 of 1981 and found against. It is also contended that in view of the decision of the civil court, the tribunal O.P.(C). No. 312 OF 2013 -2- could not have entertained the application claiming tenancy right over the property.
4. Now the matter is pending consideration before the Appellate Authority. In such a situation it is not appropriate that this Court to interfere in the matter and make any observation regarding the merit of contention first respondent has raised before that authority. The power to quash proceeding has to be exercised sparingly, in exceptional cases, where it is patently disclosed that continuation of the proceedings is nothing but vexatious. Petitioner has invited a decision in his favour from the Tribunal. The first respondent is entitled to file appeal against that decision. Whether, that appeal will be accepted or not is a question which the Appellate Authority has to decide having regard to the contention raised by the parties and the evidence on record.
5. Though I am not inclined to quash Ext.P4, appeal, having regard to the facts and circumstance, it is necessary that the Appellate Authority decides the case as early as possible.
Resultantly, this Original Petition is disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of A.A.No.34 of 2012, if preliminary steps are over, as early as possible giving it top priority having regard to the fact that the dispute between the parties started in the year, 1981.
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
ds