Disposed

Charls P.J.Luis v. Annamkutty

Kerala HC7 Apr 2010CRP/917/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a revision petition and connected writ petitions challenging the remand of special measures proceedings to the Land Tribunal. The judgment upheld the Appellate Authority's order remanding the case for fresh hearing to determine facts regarding tenancy and title, directing the Tribunal to conclude within six months.

What did the court decide?

Order of remand by the Appellate Authority to the Land Tribunal was upheld. Land Tribunal directed to dispose of the matter within six months.

Charls P.J.Luis Vs Annamkutty — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

CRP.No. 917 of 2007(E)

¶6

-------------------------------A.A. NO.13/2000 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR),THRISSUR, SM.NO.147/1989 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (NOT IMPLEADED AS A PARTY BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL:

¶8

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

¶9

CHARLS P.J.LUIS, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. N.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, S/O. NEDUMPILLY LAKSHMYKUTTY AMMA, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS. MR.T.K.MARTHANDAN UNNITHAN,

¶11

MR.V.JAYAKUMAR.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY & STATE OF KERALA/APPLICANT IN SM.NO.147/1989 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKKUDA & STATE OF KERALA:

¶13

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

¶14

1. ANNAMKUTTY, WIFE OF PERASLAVIL LONAPPAN THOMAS, PARIYARAM P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT.

¶15

2. BABU LONAPPAN, S/O. THOMAS, PERASLAVIL HOUSE, PARIYARAM P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT.

¶16

3. SALEENA, D/O. THOMAS,

¶17

-DO- -DO-

¶18

4. LISSY, D/O. THOMAS,

¶19

-DO- -DO-

¶20

5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM.

¶21

R1 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.B.KRISHNA MANI.

¶22

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NOS. 30135 OF 2007 AND 16651 OF 2009, THE COURT ON 07/04/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

prv.

¶24

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶25

WP(C) Nos.30135/07 &16651/09 & CRP No.917/07

¶26

Dated 7th April 2010

¶27

Judgment

¶28

Aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2007 in

¶29

AA No.13/00 before the Appellate Authority, Thrissur, both the appellants as well as the respondents before the Court below have come up in revision and Writ Petitions before this Court.

¶30

Since same facts and issues are involved

¶31

in these petitions, they are disposed of by a common order. The facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these cases are as follows :

¶32

The property involved in this proceedings originally belonged to one Mr.A.A.D.Louis. He was a man of many accomplishments and well known personality. He died in the year 1962 and on his death, his legal representatives executed Partition Deed No.701/69 of Ernakulam Sub Registry Office. In the

¶33

CRP 917/07 & connected cases 2

¶34

said partition deed, the above one acre of land involved in these proceedings, along with other properties devolved upon his brother, Mr.A.W.P.Louis. He died on 03.11.1982. The petitioner is the son of A.W.P.Louis. He had only two children, i.e., the petitioner and his sister. As per the will executed by A.W.P.Louis, the property devolved on the petitioner. According to the petitioner, during the life time of his father, one Lonappan was engaged as the Watchman to look after the property and on his death, his son Thomas took over as the Watchman. The petitioner in CRP No.917/07 says that he used to occasionally visit the property and ultimately, he issued a power of attorney in favour of one Prabhakaran Nair to look after the property, consequent to the death of Thomas. When the respondents in CRP No.917/07 tried to make some constructions in the property, it was objected to. Thereupon, the petitioner filed OS No.459/94, seeking

¶35

CRP 917/07 & connected cases 3

¶36

declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property involved in this proceedings from the respondents herein. In the suit, the defendants raised a claim that they had obtained purchase certificate for the property. When the petitioner enquired, he came to know that suo motu proceedings as SM No.147/89 was initiated by the Land Tribunal, Irinjalakuda showing A.A.D.Louis as the landlord and assignments were made in favour of the respondents. The petitioner pointed out that A.A.D.Louis died in 1962 and therefore, the entire proceedings which resulted in the issuance of the purchase certificate are bad in law. On coming to know about this, the petitioner in CRP No.917/09 filed an appeal as AA No.13/00 before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Thrissur, assailing the proceedings which culminated in the issuance of the purchase certificate. The Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh

¶37

CRP 917/07 & connected cases

¶38

¶39

consideration.

¶40

The respondents in the appeal preferred WP(C) No.16651/09 on the ground that since they had obtained purchase certificate, it is conclusive as per S.72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. There was no justification in remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal.

¶41

I heard both sides. From the case put forward by the revision petitioner in CRP No.917/07, it seems that the property originally belonged to one A.A.D.Louis. Since he died issue-less, consequent on his death, it is claimed that there was a partition of the property between his wife, brothers and others. The property involved in this proceedings, according to the petitioner was set apart to his father, who, as per a will bequeathed the same to the petitioner. The petitioner characterised Lonappan as a Caretaker of the property. It is further stated that consequent on the death of

¶42

CRP 917/07 & connected cases 5

¶43

Lonappan, his son Thomas took over as the Caretaker. After the death of Thomas, it is alleged that the respondents herein tried to put up a construction in the property. It was then that the petitioner realised that they were asserting their rights over the property and the suit was filed for declaration of title and possession. In defence, the respondents put forward the purchase certificate said to have been obtained by them in the SM Proceedings initiated by the Land Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. Therefore, the petitioner had to assail those proceedings in which the purchase certificate was granted to the respondents. He filed an appeal.

¶44

The main contention taken by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the proceedings were against a dead person and non-est in law. Therefore, the appellate authority ought to have allowed the appeal and dropped the SM proceedings and there was no justification in remanding the case.

¶45

CRP 917/07 & connected cases 6

¶46

According to the learned counsel, there was nothing to be claimed by the respondents.

¶47

However, the respondents in the CRP contend that

¶48

they have obtained purchase certificate in SM proceedings initiated by the Land Tribunal and there was no justification in overlooking the purchase certificate so obtained by them.

¶49

The main contention taken in CRP No.917/07 is that the proceedings were initiated against a dead person. The records of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority have been perused and it is seen that the SM proceedings were initiated by the Land Tribunal, Irinjalakuda showing A.A.D.Louis as the owner of the property. The SM proceedings were initiated on the basis of the report field by the Revenue Inspector showing A.A.D.Louis as the owner of the property. It was in those proceedings that the purchase certificate was issued to the respondents

¶50

CRP 917/07 & connected cases 7

¶51

herein. It must be noticed here that it was based on

¶52

the finding that the respondents were cultivating tenants that the purchase certificate was issued to them. The Appellate Authority felt that the whole issue needs to be reconsidered in the light of the various contentions taken by both parties. It was of the opinion that evidence had to be adduced and in this context, the remand order will have to be considered.

¶53

The learned counsel for the respondents in this CRP pointed out that as far as they are concerned, a purchase certificate has been issued to them in SM proceedings. Such a purchase certificate is conclusive as per S.72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. As pointed out, the real question involved is whether the respondents are cultivating tenants and if the SM proceedings were initiated against a dead person. According to the learned counsel, once it is shown that they are the cultivating tenants, they are not liable to

¶54

CRP 917/07 & connected cases 8

¶55

be evicted, whoever may be the landlord. As rightly noticed by the appellate authority, there were several issues to be considered while it may be right to say that the SM proceedings initiated against a dead person or non-est. The report of the Revenue Inspector shows that the respondents are in possession of the properties. The veracity of these aspects will have to be considered. It is also to be considered whether the claim that on the death of A.A.D. Louis, the property devolved on the father of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, it could not be said that the appellate authority was wrong in remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal. Several issues depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case have to be determined. Evidence will have to be adduced and documents will have to be marked and under such circumstances, the course adopted by the appellate authority is only just and proper. No grounds are made out to interfere with

¶56

CRP 917/07 & connected cases

¶57

¶58

the order of remand made by the appellate authority. However the Land Tribunal concerned is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of records from the appellate authority.

¶59

The CRP and Writ Petitions are disposed of

¶60

as above.

¶61

P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶62

sta

¶63

CRP 917/07 & connected cases 10

Charls P.J.Luis v. Annamkutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charls P.J.Luis v. Annamkutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.J.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

K.Upendra Rao Vs M.Narashim Shenai

Syndicate Bank ,Pallikara Vs C.H.Muhammed

Lalitha Ramakrishnan Vs Dhanyan and Others

M.Narashim Shenai Vs the Taluk Land Board

N.K.Sivaraman Vs Divisional Forest Officer