Allowed

T.P.Bhargavi Amma v. Puthan Purakkal Tomy

Kerala HC6 Sept 2016CRP(LR)/185/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a revision petition seeking to set aside the dismissal of an appeal for default. The court ordered restoration of the appeal on merit subject to the payment of costs, directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of the case expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed on condition that Rs. 2,000 cost is paid; appeal restored to Appellate Authority for fresh disposal after payment.

T.P.Bhargavi Amma Vs Puthan Purakkal Tomy — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/15TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

CRP(LR).No. 185 of 2016

¶6

AA 65/2002 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), KANNUR DATED 28-04-2015 SM 132/2001 of LAND TRIBUNAL-II,PAYYANNUR ------------------

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS:

¶8

1. T.P.BHARGAVI AMMA, W/O. LATE P.P KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 81 YEARS, SREE KRISHNA NIVAS, POST NADUVIL, KANNUR 670 582.

¶9

2. T.P PADMANABHAN NAMBIAR, S/O.LATE P.P KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 63 YEARS,PRAKASHAM, POST NADUVIL, KANNUR 670 582. 3. T.P MADHAVAN NAMBIAR, S/O.LATE P.P KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 60 YEARS, MANJUSHA, POST NADUVIL, KANNUR 670 582.

¶10

4. T.P. UNNIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, S/O. LATE P.P KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 54 YEARS,KRISHNASRI, NEAR PWD REST HOUSE, POST TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT -670 141.

¶11

5. T.P GOWRI, D/O.LATE P.P KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 57 YEARS, SREE KRISHNA NIVAS, POST NADUVIL, KANNUR 670 582.

¶12

6. T.P RAVEENDRAN S/O.LATE P.P KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 52 YEARS, REGISTRAR, SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, KALADY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR

....2/-

..2..

CRP(LR).No. 185 of 2016

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶19

1. PUTHAN PURAKKAL TOMY, S/O.LATE AUGUSTY, AGED 51 YEARS,ORKKAYAM, P.O NADUVIL, NEW NADUVIL VILLAGE, TALIPARAMB TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 582.

¶20

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶21

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI

¶22

SRI.JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI

¶23

R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.GOPINATH

¶24

THIS CRP (LAND REFORMS ACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

CRP(LR).No. 185 of 2016 -----------------------

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES

¶29

ANNEXURE R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE A DIARY OF THE POSTINGS OF AA.65/2012.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES ----------------------

¶31

NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE

¶32

¶33

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶34

C.R.P.(LR)No.185 of 2016

¶35

....................................................... Dated this the 6^th day of September, 2016.

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

The revision petitioners are the appellants in A.A.No.65/2002

¶38

of Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur. Suo motu proceedings were initiated as SM.No.132/2001 on the file of the Land Tribunal No.II, Payyannur stating that one Puthan Purakkal Mariyamma had claimed the tenancy right over 34 cents of land under one P.P. Krishnan Nambiar, the husband of the first revision petitioner and the father of revision petitioners 2 to 6. She claimed that she was in possession as a tenant on the basis of an oral lease under said P.P.Krishanan Nambiar and without proper enquiry, according to the revision petitioners, the suo motu proceedings were allowed and purchase certificate was issued in favour of the said Puthan Purakkal Mariyamma. This was challenged by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur as A.A.65/2002 by late P.P.Krishnan Nambiar. That was allowed by the appellate authority against which the original respondent filed CRP.No.234/2006 before this court and this court allowed the revision setting aside the order of the appellate authority and remanded the matter to the appellate authority to consider the same afresh on merit. Thereafter the original appellant died and the present revision petitioners were impleaded as his legal heirs. The original respondent also died and the present first respondent

¶39

¶40

C.R.P.(LR)No.185 of 2016

¶41

has been impleaded as the legal heir before the appellate authority. Thereafter without considering the matter on merit, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal for default and this is being challenged by the petitioners by filing this revision petition.

¶42

Heard Sri. V. Ramkumar Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Sri. Jeevan Mathew Manayani, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and special Government Pleader Sri.M.L. Sajeevan.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that earlier the appellate authority has set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal granting purchase certificate in favour of the original respondent namely Puthan Purakkal Mriyamma and that was challenged by Puthan Purakkal Mariyamma by filing a revision before this court and this court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. So the court below even if in the absence of the appellants should have considered the documents and passed orders on merit which has not been done. Further even assuming that there was some laches on the part of the counsel who had appeared, that can be compensated by awarding cost for the inconvenience caused to other side and an opportunity may be given to the revision petitioners to meet the case on merit.

¶44

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the first

¶45

C.R.P.(LR)No.185 of 2016 3

¶46

respondent submitted that the proceedings paper will go to show that the petitioners were not interested in prosecuting the matter after the death of the original revision petitioner. So that was the reason why the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal for default as the petitioners were not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

¶47

It is an admitted fact that suo motu proceedings were initiated at the instance of the original respondent namely Puthan Purakkal Mariyama as SM.No. 132/2001 on the file of the Land Tribunal No.II, Paayynnur claiming that she is in possession of 34 cents of land under P.P.Krishnan Nambiar, the original appellant before the appellate authority, as cultivating tenant on the basis of oral lease which was denied by late P.P.Krishnan Nambiar. Though the claim of oral lease which was denied by late P.P.Krishnan Nambiar that was repelled by the Land Tribunal and purchase certificate was ordered in favour of the tenant namely Puthan Purakkal Mariyama. Aggrieved by the order of the Land Tribunal No.II, Payyannur, late P.P.Krishnan Nambiar the predecessor of the revision petitioners filed AA.No.65/2002 before the Appellate Authority, Land Tribunal, Kannur and after hearing both sides, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of assignment granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of Puthan Purakkal Mariyama. That was challenged by said

¶48

¶49

C.R.P.(LR)No.185 of 2016

¶50

Puthan Purakkal Mariyama before this court as CRP.No.234/2006 and this court, after hearing both sides, by order dated 1.11.2012, set aside the order of the appellate authority and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

¶51

It is also seen from the proceedings paper produced before this court by the counsel for the respondents that during the pendency of the appeal, the original respondent died and thereafter the present first respondent was impleaded as her legal heir. Further the original appellant namely Krishnan Nambiar also died and the present revision petitioners were impleaded as his legal heirs and all these things happened only in the year 2015 though there was a direction by this court to dispose of the appeal within a time frame of one month, it was not done. It is thereafter that the counsel for the revision petitioners did not appear and the appeal happened to be dismissed for default as per the impugned order dated 28^th April, 2015. It is seen from the order that though supplemental second respondent was impleaded as the legal heirs of the original respondent, no steps were taken against the supplemental second respondent. But the counsel for the first respondent, who was impleaded as additional second respondent before the appellate authority, submitted that he entered appearance and contested the matter. That shows that the

¶52

¶53

C.R.P.(LR)No.185 of 2016

¶54

observation made by the court below that no step was taken against the supplemental second respondent appears to be not correct.

¶55

Further, this court feels that an opportunity has to be given to the parties to meet the case on merit especially when the predecessor of the revision petitioners had contested the matter in the Land Tribunal and also filed appeal diligently before the appellate authority which was earlier ended in his favour but later set aside by this court and remanded for disposal. But at the same time, due to non co-operation of the former counsel appearing for the petitioners in helping the appellate authority to dispose of the case on merit, some inconvenience has been caused to the other side and laches on the part of the counsel should not be stand in the way of allowing the revision petitioners to meet the case on merit by giving an opportunity to them by setting aside the order and remanding the matter to the appellate authority afresh for fresh disposal. But at the same time the laches can be condoned only on terms. So the revision petition is allowed on condition that the petitioners shall pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the counsel for the first respondent on or before 26.9.2016 and if the cost is paid within that time, the revision will stand allowed and the matter will be remitted to the appellate authority for fresh disposal. If the cost is not paid, the revision will stand dismissed. If cost is

¶56

¶57

C.R.P.(LR)No.185 of 2016

¶58

paid and proof of payment of cost is produced before the appellate authority within the time specified by this court, then the appellate authority is directed to take the appeal A.A.No.65/2002 on file and dispose of the same afresh after giving an opportunity to the parties to have hearing in accordance with law. If the cost is not paid and proof of payment of cost is not produced before the appellate authority within the time specified, then the revision will stand dismissed and order of the appellate authority will stand revived. Parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kannur on 3.10.2016. On appearance of the parties, the appellate authority is directed to expedite the disposal of the case taking note of the fact that the appeal is of the year 2002 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of restoration of the appeal on file and production of proof of cost by the revision petitioners as directed by this court.

¶59

With the above observations and directions this revision petition is disposed of.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶62

¶63

C.R.P.(LR)No.185 of 2016 7

T.P.Bhargavi Amma v. Puthan Purakkal Tomy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P.Bhargavi Amma v. Puthan Purakkal Tomy

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

Vellanchola Sainaba Vs District Collector

Mini P. Vs Rajendran

Sabu Markose Vs M.v.Sumon

Treesa Lazer Vs Vinu

Cr Syam Mohan Vs Sudhakumary

Madhavan Vs Parimalam