The High Court rejected a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Revenue). The Court held that documents produced after the initiation of proceedings could not alter the case, finding the impugned order devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/31ST BHADRA, 1936
CRP.No. 58 of 2010 (E)
SM 210/1987 of LAND TRIBUNAL NO.1, KASARGOD AA 89/2003 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY(IR), KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/A.PARTY:
P.MUTHU NAIR,S/O.CHINDAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KARIYATH OF KOLATHUR VILLAGE KASARAGOD TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & STATE B PARTY & STATE:
R2 BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI.JOBY JOSEPH
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
C.R.P. No.58 of 2010 E
ORDER
The defeated 'A' party, in suo motu proceedings S.M. No.210 of 1987 of the Land Tribunal No.1 Kasaragod, had unsuccessfully challenged the said order in appeal, as A.A. No.89 of 2003 before the Appellate Authority (IR), Kannur. The Appellate Authority concurred with the findings entered by the Land Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. By complaining about the want of sufficient opportunity extended to him, the 'A' party had approached this Court through C.R.P.No.2203 of 1994, by challenging the order of the Appellate Authority in A.A. No.220 of 1990.
C.R.P. No.58 of 2010
2
of 1994, gave a chance to the petitioner to produce some more documents as the petitioner wanted, before the Appellate Authority and thereby, the order of the Appellate Authority was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority.
C.R.P. No.58 of 2010
3
learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that those Assessment Receipts were of the period from 1966 to 2000, and therefore, those Assessment Receipts were obtained after the initiation of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal.
C.R.P. No.58 of 2010
4
In the result, this C.R.P. is dismissed. There is no order as
to costs.
Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA , JUDGE
dl
// TRUE COPY //
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Appellate Authority's dismissal of appeal where documents produced after initiation of proceedings were not considered properly.
Whether assessment receipts produced by the petitioner after the initiation of land tribunal proceedings can improve the petitioner's case.
Whether the revision petition is devoid of merits.
P. Muthu Nair
Kodoth Karthiyayini Amma
Rathnavathy
The State of Kerala
B. Kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
