Kerala High Court · 2012

CRP(LR) 288/20124. MANI S/O.PONNUCHAMI, R/AT NERUKAKKAD, KALLEPULLY.P.O. PALAKKAD. 678 001.5. KRISHNAPRASAD R/AT KRISHNA VIHAR, ELAPPULLY (PO) PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 678 001.6. PRAKASAN RESIDING AT KRISHNA VIHAR, ELAPPULLY (PO) PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 678 001.7. THULASIDAS S/O.GOPALANUNNI, EKKANATH HOUSE, PRABATHAM ELAPPULLY (PO), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 678 001.8. NALINI W/O.LATE DAMODHARAN REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER THULASIDAS S/O.GOPALANUNNI, EKKANATH HOUSE, PRABATHAM ELAPPULLY (PO), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 678 001.9. GEETHA W/O.JAYAKRISHNA MENON, EKKANATH MANAKKAD ELAPPULLY (PO), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 678 001.10. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY. K.T. THIS CRP (LAND REFORMS ACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON16-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: “C.R.”V. CHITAMBARESH, J--------------------------------C.R.P.(LR) NO. 288 OF 2012------------------------------------Dated this the 16th day of July, 2012ORDERCan a Land Tribunal issue certificates of purchase inrespect of the same land to two different persons under thescheme of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafterreferred to as the 'Act' only)? This question has beensuccinctly answered in Patinhare Purayil Nabeesumma Vs.Miniyatan Zacharias [(2008) 5 SCC 25] as follows: “A certificate issued under Section 72 Kof the Act is conclusive. Once the same is found tobe conclusive, the same cannot be refused to betaken into consideration for any purposewhatsoever. The only issue which, therefore, shouldhave been raised by the High Court was as to whowas entitled thereto, keeping in view the fact thatthe land tribunal had granted certificates ofassignment to both the parties. In view of thestatutory scheme, both the parties could not havebeen given the certificates of assignment. Thecertificate in favour of the appellant, evenotherwise, having been granted earlier and thesame having not been set aside on the ground offraud or illegality, it was conclusive even as againstthe land tribunal. The land tribunal, therefore, hadno jurisdiction to issue a second certificate.”(emphasis supplied). 2CRP(LR) No. 288/20122.The Land Tribunal, Palakkad by order dated25.01.1977 in S.M. No. 10388/1976 issued a certificate ofpurchase in favour of one Ponnuchami in respect of 88 centsof land in Sy. No. 6/5 of Marutharoad village in PalakkadTaluk. The legal heirs of the said Ponnuchami assigned 20cents of land out of the 88 cents to the first respondent by saledeed (document No. 1948/2000) who had also remitted basictax pursuant thereto. The very same Land Tribunal by orderdated 19.09.1977 in O.A. No. 277/1975 issued anothercertificate of purchase in favour of one Anthony Muthu inrespect of 2.16 acres in the same survey number and village.The revision petitioners are none other than the legal heirs ofthe said Anthony Muthu who challenge the order of theAppellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur in this CivilRevision Petition filed under Section 103 of the Act.3.An application put in by the first respondentfor possession certificate was returned by the village officerwith an endorsement that Ponnuchami did not hold any land inSy. No. 6/5 as per the village records. The village officer was 3CRP(LR) No. 288/2012presumably swayed by the fact that the land for which thepossession certificate was sought is covered by a certificate ofpurchase in favour of Anthony Muthu. Discreet enquiriesmade by the first respondent revealed that the predecessor-in-interest of the revision petitioners had also obtained acertificate of purchase from the Land Tribunal. The firstrespondent was admittedly not a party to the proceedings inO.A. No. 277/1975 granting certificate of purchase to AnthonyMuthu and was not therefore bound by it in law. However thefirst respondent preferred an appeal to the AppellateAuthority against the order in O.A. No. 277/1975 to removethe cloud on title and set right the anomaly in the certificatesof purchase. The Appellate Authority had by the orderimpugned condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the firstrespondent and set aside the order in O.A. No. 277/1975 andfurther remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for freshconsideration.4.Mr. T. Sethumadhavan, Advocate on behalf ofthe revision petitioners contended that the order of the 4CRP(LR) No. 288/2012Appellate Authority is liable to be set at naught for thefollowing among other grounds:(i)The first respondent hadno locus standi to file an appeal to theAppellate Authority (Land Reforms).(ii)The delay of 26 years infiling the appeal had been lightlycondoned by the Appellate Authority.(iii)There could be twocertificates of purchase in respect of thesame land to two different persons.5.It needs no elaboration to hold that anyperson aggrieved by any order of the Land Tribunal grantingcertificate of purchase falling within Section 72 F of the Actcan maintain an appeal under Section 102 thereof. (seeBhaskaran Vs. Aisabi [1987 (2) KLT 213] and GovindaPillai Vs. Madhavan Pillai [1988 (2) KLT 522]. The firstrespondent is an assignee of the land from the legal heirs ofthe holder of a certificate of purchase and can very well assail 5CRP(LR) No. 288/2012the certificate of purchase granted to another when it relatesto the same land. I have no iota of doubt in my mind to holdthat the first respondent was a person aggrieved by the orderof the Land Tribunal in O.A. No. 277/1975 and well competentto maintain an appeal under the Act.6.Much arguments were addressed on thealleged belated filing of appeal by the first respondent sinceabout 26 years had elapsed since the order in O.A. No.277/1975 was passed by the Land Tribunal. The extent of thedelay is immaterial when the order in O.A. No. 277/1975 hadbeen passed by the Land Tribunal behind the back of the firstrespondent. The revision petitioners had not been successfulin imputing knowledge to the revision petitioners about theorder in O.A. No. 277/1975 at any point of time earlier to holdthem guilty of laches. It was contended that the certificate ofpurchase in O.A. No. 277/1975 had been produced as anexhibit in a suit (O.S. No. 306/2005) filed by the erstwhilelandlord (jenmi) against the revision petitioners. But the suitwas for injunction simplicitor filed long after the land was 6CRP(LR) No. 288/2012taken assignment of by the first respondent by sale deed No.1948/2000 when the jenmi had lost interest in the holding andthe first respondent was not made a party therein. The appealto the Appellate Authority had been preferred soon after theapplication put in by the first respondent for possessioncertificate was returned by the village officer. Only a formalapplication for condonation of delay in filing the appeal waswarranted and the time lag between its preferment and theorder impugned is inconsequential.7.There already existed a certificate of purchasein S.M. No. 10388/1976 in respect of 88 cents of land andthere was no consequent reduction in extent while grantingcertificate of purchase in O.A. No. 277/1975. Apparently theland situated in Sy. No. 6/5 of Marutharoad village covered bythe two certificates of purchase overlap which isimpermissible as per the dictum in Nabeesumma's case. Thecertificate of purchase in S.M. No. 10388/1976 not havingbeen set aside on the ground of fraud or illegality wasconclusive even as against the Land Tribunal which had 7CRP(LR) No. 288/2012therefore no jurisdiction to issue a second certificate ofpurchase in O.A. No. 277/1975 covering the same land. Whichof the two certificates of purchase would prevail is a matterfor deeper probe by the Land Tribunal which had preciselybeen directed by the Appellate Authority in the orderimpugned. The Appellate Authority had only set aside thesubsequent order granting certificate of purchase in respect ofthe same land for a denovo consideration after notice to theinterested parties.8.The Land Tribunal has to consider as to whatexactly is the total extent available in Sy. No. 6/5 ofMarutharoad village and whether the two certificates ofpurchase relate to the same land. Which of the twocertificates of purchase would prevail in case the land coveredby the two certificates of purchase overlap is also anothermoot question to be adjudicated by the Land Tribunal. Theenquiry has of course to be confined to the overlaping of theproperty in the two certificates of purchase and need notpervade to the remaining property in O.A. No. 277/1975. The 8CRP(LR) No. 288/2012Appellate Authority had neither decided erroneously nor failedto decide any question of law in remanding the matter as towarrant interference under Section 103 of the Act.The Civil Revision Petition is rejected in limine.V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGEncd