Disposed

Gopinathan v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC11 Nov 2009CRP/600/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a revision petition challenging an Appellate Authority order. It permitted the petitioner to challenge the underlying Land Tribunal order via a civil suit due to alleged fraud, otherwise closing the revision without further orders on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to challenge the purchase certificate in the Civil Court by way of a suit.

Gopinathan Vs State of Kerala and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶4

CRP.No. 600 of 2009() -----------------------------AA.12/2007 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY .(LR),THRISSUR

¶5

REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/APPLICANT

¶6

----------------------------------------

¶7

GOPINATHAN, S/O. LATE KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN RESIDING AT MANDALAMKUNNATH, MULLURKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.MR.C.A.ANOOP MR.T.C.SURESH MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

¶10

-------------------------

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. BHARGAVY, W/O. KUMARAN EZHUTHACHAN

¶13

3. MURALIDHARAN S/O. BHARGAVY.

¶14

4. INDIRA, D/O. BHARGAVY.

¶15

5. SATHI, D/O. BHARGAVY.

¶16

6. GIRIJA D/O. BHARGAVY (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT MANGATTU NJALIL, MULLURKARA VILLGE THALAPILLY TALUK THRISUR DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT GIRIJA NIVAS KANIPAYYOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.)

¶17

7. SAROJINI, D/O.LATE KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN

¶18

8. CHANDRASHEKARAN, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN.

¶19

C.R.P. NO.600/2009

¶20

9. MURALIDHARAN, S/O. LATE KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN.

¶21

10. RADHA W/O. LATE SANKARANARAYANAN.

¶22

11. SAWMYA D/O. RADHA.

¶23

12. SARATH, S/O. RADHA. RESPONDENTS 7 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT MANDALAMKUNNATH, MULLURKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶24

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

tss

¶26

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶27

C.R.P.No.600 OF 2009

¶28

Dated this the 11^th day of November 2009 -------------------------------------

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Revision is directed against the order

¶31

dated 30/09/2009 in A.A No. 12 of 2007 passed by the Appellate Authority(Land Reforms), Thrissur. The revision petitioners had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging an order passed by the Land Tribunal, Wadakkanchery in O.A No. 2296/1976 issuing a purchase certificate in favour of the predecessor of the respondents in the revision. The revision petitioners are in possession of the property in respect of which the purchase certificate had been obtained by the applicant in the above O.A and the certificate had been so obtained fraudulently after making some corrections in the name of the applicant in the application moved by another person was the crux of the case canvassed in the appeal to impeach the

¶32

C.R.P.No.600 OF 2009 Page numbers

¶33

certificate issued by the Land Tribunal. The Appellate Authority was not satisfied of the grounds canvassed by the revision petitioner to challenge the certificate which had been issued by the tribunal nearly 30 years ago. At the time of hearing of the revision, impeaching the correctness of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions to seek permission to canvass his challenges against the order issued by the Land Tribunal in the O.A No.2296/1976 in favour of the predecessor of the respondents by way of a suit

¶34

before the Civil Court. Since the petitioners have got a case that the issue of purchase certificate

¶35

by the tribunal is vitiated by fraud they may be given a chance to challenge that certificate in the

¶36

competent civil court as provided by law is the submission of the counsel. It is open to the petitioner to seek whatever remedies available

¶37

C.R.P.No.600 OF 2009 Page numbers

¶38

under law to impeach the correctness of the purchase certificate issued in the O.A by the Land Tribunal. Reserving the right of the petitioner to seek such remedies, if so available, the revision

¶39

is closed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

P.A TO JUDGE

¶44

vdv

Gopinathan v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopinathan v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunjan Sivaraman Vs Mariamma Joseph and Others

Mohanan Vs Abdul Salam

Babu Vs Anirudhan

K.Chathu Vs a.Kabeerdas & Others

K.K. Rajeevan Vs T.V. Gangadharan

Vasanthakumari Vs Raichal Banitta