Reji vs Narayananunni Nair
2021 Latest Caselaw 731 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

    FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

                        OP(C).No.2004 OF 2020

               OA NO.355/1972 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, MUKKAM

                             -----------


PETITIONER:

               REJI
               AGED 49 YEARS
               S/O.KESAVAN, PANTHALANIKKAL HOUSE, THIRUVAMBADY
               DESOM, PONNAMKAYAM P.O., THIRUVAMBADY VILLAGE,
               THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 603.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
               SRI.P.V.VARGHESE (KANJIRAMATTOM)

RESPONDENTS:

      1        NARAYANANUNNI NAIR
               MANNILEDATH HOUSE, CHATHAMANGALAM P.O.,
               THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 601.

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


     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                     SATHISH NINAN, J.
           ==================
                 O.P.(C). No.2004 of 2020
           ==================
           Dated this the 8th day of January, 2021

                         JUDGMENT

The application filed by the petitioner under

Rule 136A of the KLR (Tenancy) Rules, 1970, seeking correction of the extent of property included in

certificate of purchase No.3307/1977 issued by the

Land Tribunal-II, Mukkom was dismissed. Challenging

the said order this original petition is filed.

2. The certificate of purchase bearing

No.3307/1977 was issued by the Land Tribunal-II,

Mukkom in OA 355/1972 in favour of one Eacharan

Krishnan. The certificate described the extent of

property as 3.34 acres. The legal heirs of the said

Eacharan Krishnan conveyed the property in favour

of the petitioner as per Gift Deed 2813/2006.

Subsequently the petitioner understood that the

property covered under the purchase certificate has

an extent of 9.38 acres and that it was mistakenly

mentioned in the certificate of purchase as 3.34

acres. It is accordingly that the application is O.P.(C). No.2004 of 2020 :- 2 :-

stated to have been filed seeking correction of the

extent, alleging it to be rectification of mistake.

3. The power of the Land Tribunal to effect

corrections has been laid down by this Court in

State of Kerala and others v. Thomas Kurian and another 2014 (4)

KHC 324. The power is akin to that of under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is confined

to correction of clerical and arithmetical

mistakes.

4. Land Tribunal found that the extent of

property as was mentioned in the application was

3.34 acres; that the application referred to a

Kanam sale deed referring the extent of property as

3.34 acres. The Tribunal also took note of the fact

that the application for correction has been filed

almost 48 years after the assignment and

accordingly dismissed the application.

5. As noticed above, the power of the Land

Tribunal in a proceeding under Rule 136A of the

KLR (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 for rectification is very

limited. The Tribunal has noted that going by the

extent as mentioned in the application as well as O.P.(C). No.2004 of 2020 :- 3 :-

in the deed it appears that there is no mistake in

the extent mentioned. On the application, the

Tribunal could not have gone beyond the said

documents.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner that, the mentioning of the extent

in the certificate of purchase is a mistake, that

the properties were un-surveyed at the time of

lease, that the certificate of purchase was in

respect of the entire property situated within the

boundaries as mentioned in the certificate of

purchase and hence the certificate of purchase must

relate to the entire extent of property covered

within the boundary, are all matters to be urged

and agitated before a civil court. The said

contentions cannot be considered in the present

proceeding.

7. Accordingly, while I refuse to interfere

with the impugned order, it is clarified that the

right of the petitioner to approach the civil court

to establish his rights if any, is left open. If

such a claim is made, the civil court shall decide O.P.(C). No.2004 of 2020 :- 4 :-

the lis untramelled by the order impugned in this

original petition. However, I make it clear that

the documents referred to by the Land Tribunal in

the order impugned, can also be adverted to by the

court, if the same are produced in evidence.

Original petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge OP(C).No.2004 OF 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL ON 19.03.1975.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PURCHASE DATED 30.12.1977 ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MUKKOM IN THE NAME OF EACHARAN KRISHNAN.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.2813/2006 OF SRO, KODENCHERRY.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT PERTAINING TO THE TITLE HOLDING PROPERTY OF 1 HECTOR 35.22 ARES EQUIVALENT TO 3 ACRES 34 CENTS FOR THE YEAR 2017-18.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 08.10.2009 FOR 6.04 ACRES.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE DATED 04.08.2018.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C) NO.2227/2018 DATED 13.11.2018 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2020 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.

----------