Allowed

Katalappurath Lakshmi v. Paipparambath Janardhanan

Kerala HC4 Nov 2016CRP(LR)/271/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the High Court held that the appellate authority correctly set aside a purchase certificate but erred in not remanding the matter. The revision was allowed in part, and the case remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal after granting both parties an opportunity to adduce evidence regarding their respective rights.

What did the court decide?

The revision is allowed in part. The order is remanded to the Land Tribunal to decide afresh after giving both parties a three-day notice to adduce evidence, including legal heirs of the original tena

Katalappurath Lakshmi Vs Paipparambath Janardhanan — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/13TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

CRP(LR).No. 271 of 2015 ()

¶6

--------------------------AA.NO. 36/2011 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS),THRISSUR SM.NO. 1678/2003 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, MANJERI

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 :

¶8

1. KATTALAPPURATH LAKSHMI, D/O.RAMANKUTTY, CHALIPADAM,

¶9

ERANHIKODE P.O, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 541.

¶10

2. POOKKOTTIL BALAN, S/O.VELU, ERANHIKODE P.O, EDAVANNA,

¶11

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 541.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.C.A.ANAS

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT, RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 AND STATE :

¶14

1. PAIPPARAMBATH JANARDHANAN, S/O.KUNHILAKSHMI AMMA, "LAKSHMI" EAST K.C.ROAD, WEST HILL P.O, KOZHIKKODE-5.

¶15

2. K.T.PADMAVATHY AMMA, W/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, VIJAYAMANDIRAM,

¶16

RAYIRIMANGALAM, TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 302.

¶17

3. K.T.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, VIJAYAMANDIRAM, RAYIRIMANGALAM, TANUR P.O.,

¶18

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 302.

¶19

4. K.T.JYOTHILAKSHMI, D/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, VIJAYAMANDIRAM, RAYIRIMANGALAM, TANUR P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 302.

¶20

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

¶21

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001

¶22

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.BENNY VARGHESE R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.I.JOHNSON

¶23

THIS CRP (LAND REFORMS ACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

sts

¶25

CRP(LR).NO.271/2015

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶28

ANNEX A1	COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVALI VILLAGE, DATED 26/5/2010
ANNEX A2	COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVALI VILLAGE, DATED 25/5/2010
ANNEX A3	COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVALI VILLAGE, DATED 28/10/2011
ANNEX A4	COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVALI VILLAGE, DATED 28/10/2011
ANNEX A5	COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVALI VILLAGE, DATED 19/9/2012
ANNEX A6	COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVALI VILLAGE, DATED 25/5/2013
ANNEX A7	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVALI VILLAGE, DATED 11/7/2008
ANNEX A8	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TH VILLAGE OFF, THIRUVALI VILLAGE, DATED 7/5/2008
ANNEX A9	COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, WANDOOR DATED 24/4/2008
ANNEX 10	COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, WANDOOR DATED 5/7/2008

¶29

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

¶30

ANNEX R1(A) COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.5/573 DATED 29/9/1989.

¶31

ANNEX R1(B) COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.56/1099 DATED 21/2/1991

¶32

ANNEX R1(C) CPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.863/1991 DATED 7/3/1991

¶33

ANNEX R1(D) COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.82/486 DATED 3/11/2001

¶34

ANNEX R1(E) COPY OF THE KARAR DATED 23/6/1986

¶35

ANNEX R1(F) COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.349/2004 DATED 28/4/2004

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶40

....................................... C.R.P.(LR).No.271 of 2015

¶41

........................................ Dated this the 4^th day of November, 2016.

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

The first revision petitioner is the person claiming to be the cultivating tenant in whose favour the purchase certificate was issued as per order in SM.No. 1678/2003 of Land Tribunal, Manjeri which was challenged by the first respondent herein by filing AA.No.36/2011 before the Appellate Authority(LR), Thrissur with a delay condonation application to condone the delay of 2754 days. After hearing both sides, the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur allowed the appeal and set aside the purchase certificate issued in favour of the first respondent, from whom the second respondent purchased the property. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the revision petitioners.

¶44

Heard Sri. M.A. Abdul Hakhim, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. M.R. Goplakrishnan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri. Benny Varghese , learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4.

¶45

Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the first respondent is not an interested party and not entitled to challenge the purchase certificate. The property originally belonged to one Sinnammu @ Karthyani Amma and one Kunhiraman Nair obtained lease of the property from Karthyani Amma. According to the petitioners, Kunhiraman Nair had entered into an

¶46

C.R.P.(LR).No.271 of 2015 2

¶47

agreement to sell with the first revision petitioner and the property was entrusted to him and he was in possession of the property and cultivating the same. It is on the basis of the report of the Village Officer, suo motu proceedings were initiated as SM.No.1678/2003 of the Land Tribunal, Manjeri and after enquiry, purchase certificate was issued in favour of the first petitioner and he had sold the property to the second revision petitioner, who is his wife. The counsel for the revision petitioners also submitted that Karthyani Amma applied for resumption of right and in the enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Malappuram, Kunhiraman Nair contended that Krishnankutty Nair was the sub lessee, who was in possession of the property and that contention was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The case of the first respondent was that the said Kunhiraman Nair orally leased the property to one Krishnankutty Nair. One Narayanan Nair filed a suit for realization of the amount against the said Krishnankutty Nair and the suit was decreed and in execution of the decree, this property was sold in court auction and it was purchased by Balakrishnan Nair, from whom the first respondent purchased the same. Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the right of Krishnankutty Nair was rejected in the records of proceedings by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Malappuram and that was challenged by Krishnankutty Nair by filing OP.No.5270/1968 and this court confirmed the same. The

¶48

C.R.P.(LR).No.271 of 2015 3

¶49

first respondent will not get any right. So the appellate authority was not justified in allowing the appeal and setting aside the purchase certificate issued in favour of the first revision petitioner.

¶50

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the first revision petitioner cannot be deemed to be a tenant as he is claiming right only on the basis of an agreement to sell which was entered into between Kunhiraman Nair and himself on a blank paper not even on a stamp paper and no right can be claimed on the basis of that unless any document has been got executed from him on that basis. Further OA.No.59/1970 was pending before the Land Tribunal, Manjeri filed by Sinnammu @ Karthyani Amma.

¶51

It is an admitted fact that the property originally belonged to jenm to Sinnammu @ Karthyani Amma and one Kunhiraman Nair obtained lease from her and he was in possession of the property. According to the first revision petitioner, he had entered into an agreement to sell with the said Kunhikrishnan Nair and by virtue of the document, he was put in possession of the property and he is cultivating the property. According to the respondent No.1, the above said Kunhikrishnan Nair had orally leased the property to one Krishnankutty Nair and one Narayanan Nair filed a suit against Krishnankutty Nair for realization of the amount and in execution of the decree under that suit, the property was sold in auction and Balakrishnan Nair purchased the property in court

¶52

C.R.P.(LR).No.271 of 2015 4

¶53

auction from whom the first respondent had purchased the same and thereby he is entitled to get the right of Krishnankutty Nair as a lessee and the first petitioner is not entitled to get any right as the agreement to sell will not give any right over the same. When he came to know about the issuance of purchase certificate in favour of the first revision petitioner, he filed AA.No.36/2011 before the Appellate Authority(LR), Thrissur along with delay condonation application to condone the delay of 2754 days in filing the appeal. Since he was not a party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, only from the date of knowledge he will be entitled to challenge the order, the appellate authority was perfectly justified in condoning the delay and entertaining the appeal field by him.

¶54

The question as to whether he is having any interest in the property, whether he is an interested person entitled to file appeal cannot be questioned as he is also claiming right under Kunhiraman Nair through Krishnankutty Nair, whose right was sold in court auction and he obtained the property from the auction purchaser in the court auction. Whether Krishnankuty Nair has got right or not is a matter to be considered by elaborate enquiry. Mere production of documents before this court or appellate authority will not be sufficient for that purpose. Further it was admitted by both counsel that the proceedings initiated by Sinnammu @ Karthyani Amma as OA.No.35/1965 for resumption of property

¶55

C.R.P.(LR).No.271 of 2015 5

¶56

under section 16 of the Act is still pending before the Land Tribunal in spite of the proceedings of the RDO, Malappuram was culminated as per order dated 28.10.1968. The question as to whether Krishnankutty Nair has got any right or the first revision petitioner by virtue of the agreement to sell had obtained any right which entitled him to get assignment of jenm right over the property etc are matters to be considered by the Land Tribunal on the basis of the evidence to be adduced. Though the appellate authority was justified in setting aside the order issuing purchase certificate on the ground that it was issued without hearing the interested party namely the present first respondent, who also claim some right through the same tenant Kunhiraman Nair. The appellate authority ought to have set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry after affording opportunity to both the parties instead of simply setting aside the order.

¶57

So under such circumstances, this court feels that it is necessary to remit the case to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal after giving an opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence regarding right claimed by them and it is for the land Tribunal to consider the rival tenancy rights and decide as to whether who is entitled to get purchase certificate in respect of the same. Since resumption proceedings initiated by the original landlord if pending as OA.No.35/1965 before the Land Tribunal, Tirur which is now pending before the Land Tribunal, Manjeri as OA.No.59/1970 that

¶58

C.R.P.(LR).No.271 of 2015 6

¶59

also has to be considered along with these proceedings. If the landlord is entitled to get resumption of right under section 16 of the Act, then none of these persons will be entitled to get purchase certificate. So under such circumstances, this court feels that it is necessary in the interest of justice to allow the revision in part while confirming the order setting aside the purchase certificate issued in favour of the first revision petitioner as per order in SM.No.1678/2003 of Land Tribunal, Manjeri, remit the same to the Land Tribunal, Manjeri for fresh consideration after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence. The Land Tribunal, Manjeri is directed to issue notice to both the parties namely the revision petitioners herein and the first respondent and also legal heirs of the original tenant Kuhiraman Nair and also landlady Sinnamma @ Karthyani Amma or her legal heirs and thereafter, after affording opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence regarding their claims and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.

¶60

With the above directions and observations, the revision is allowed in part and disposed of accordingly. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur and to the Land Reforms, Majeri for further necessary action in this regard. Sd/-

¶61

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶62

Katalappurath Lakshmi v. Paipparambath Janardhanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katalappurath Lakshmi v. Paipparambath Janardhanan

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

Thomas Mathew Vs Scaria K.M

Devadas J Vs Chellamma

Peter Vs Joseph Peter

Jinitha Jaimon Vs Rajendran

Hari Vs Simon

Narayanan Vs Vasu