Petitioner challenged the dismissal of his application for an Advocate Commissioner report. The High Court held that ascertaining cultivation details would not help resolve the core controversy regarding the petitioner's renting status. Thus, the order was dismissed as illegal. Petitioner's petition dismissed.
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 K.HARILAL
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938
OP(C).No. 1103 of 2015 (O)
--------------------------I.A. NO.18/2015 IN A.A. NO.31/2013 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS), ALAPPUZHA.
PETITIONER(S):
THANKAPPAN, AGED 60, S/O.NARAYANAN, KELAMANGALAM MURI, THAKAZHY, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.P.SHANES METHAR.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. GOVINDAN POTTI,
S/O.GOVINDAN NAMBOODIRI, KANIMANGALAM, VAZHAPPALLY P.O., CHANGANASSERY, ALAPPUZHA-688 026.
2. P.K. KESAVA BABU, RECEIVER IN O.S.NO.35/1961 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW. SRI.DIPU JAMES.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
OP(C).No. 1103 of 2015 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
K. HARILAL, J.
O.P. (C) No. 1103 of 2015-O
-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 28th day of June, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the appellant in A.A.No.31/2013 on the files of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Alappuzha. The above appeal was filed against an order passed in S.M. No.184/2006 on the files of the Land Tribunal, Cherthala. This Original Petition (Civil) is filed challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority in I.A.No.18/2015 in A.A. No.31/2013. The above application is filed seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for preparing report, sketch and mahazar, after ascertaining the descriptions regarding the cultivation made by the appellant in the appeal schedule wetland and to ascertain whether the respondent has any possession and made any
O.P. (C) No. 1103 of 2015 -: 2 :-
cultivation in the appeal schedule wetland. After considering the objections raised by the respondents herein, the Appellate Authority dismissed the said application by Ext.P5 order. The legality of the reasoning; whereby the Appellate Authority dismissed the said application, is under challenge in this Original Petition (Civil).
O.P. (C) No. 1103 of 2015 -: 3 :-
appeal schedule wet land. It is pertinent to note that the Appellate Authority has specifically observed that the issue to be considered in the appeal is whether the petitioner/appellant is a cultivating tenant under Sec.2(8) of the KLR Act or not.
O.P. (C) No. 1103 of 2015
-: 4 :-
justified in dismissing the application. I do not find
any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.
This Original Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain cultivation details was justified to decide the question of controversy in the appeal.
Whether the order dismissing the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was legally sustainable.
THANKAPPAN
GOVINDAN POTTI
P.K. KESAVA BABU
K. HARILAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
