Kerala High Court
Sebastian vs Mariyamma Antony on 24 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1943
OP(C) NO. 1009 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGEMENT IN AP 24/2020 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY
(LR), ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONERS / APPELLANTS:
1. SEBASTIAN,
AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VARGHESE, RESIDING AT MANALI HOUSE,
VENNALA P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 028.
2. AUGUSTINE,
AGED 75 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VARGHESE, RESIDING AT MANALI HOUSE,
VENNALA P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 028.
BY ADVS.
K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ (K/145/2016)-18313
CHERIAN SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS:
1. MARIYAMMA ANTONY,
AGED 70 YEARS,
W/O. ANTONY, MANALI HOUSE,
KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM,
DISTRICT 682 013.
2. VICAR,
ST. JOHN'S CHURCH,
KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT 682 013.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C)No.1009 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of May 2021
The petitioners herein are the appellants in Appeal
No.24/2020 on the files of the Land Reforms Appellate
Authority, Alappuzha filed challenging the order in O.A.
No.111/2009 of the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam. The
petitioners were not the parties therein but had filed an
application to get themselves impleaded on the ground
that they also have right over the property for which
Kudikidappu was claimed. It seems that without
passing any order on that the application filed by the
first respondent was allowed which is under challenge
before the Appellate Authority.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that
though the delay application filed along with the appeal
was allowed and the matter posted for hearing of the
stay petition, the presiding officer has demited the
office and hence, matter could not be taken up. The
anxiety of the petitioners herein is that since the
O.P.(C)No.1009 OF 2021
respondents have demolished the building and are
attempting to construct a new building therein, it may
cause irreparable injury to the petitioners.
3. Having considered the entire facts, I am
inclined to dispose of the original petition with a
direction that any construction made by the
respondents on the land covered by O.A. No.111/2009
shall be at the risk of the respondents and shall be
subject to the final decision of the Appellate Authority.
It is also made clear that the respondents will not be
entitled to claim any preferential right on the mere
basis of construction of building pending the
proceedings. This order will be in force for a period of
two months.
4. The Appellate Authority shall pass appropriate
orders on the stay petition within the above period. If
the authority is not able to pass an order within a
period of two months, the authority will be free to
extend this order for such minimum time to enable the
authority to pass appropriate orders. Communicate a
O.P.(C)No.1009 OF 2021
copy of this order to the respondents.
Original Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
JUDGE
SKP/25-5
O.P.(C)No.1009 OF 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2018 IN
O.A. NO. 111/2009 ON THE FILE OF ERNAKULAM
LAND TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE
DATED 06.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE LAND
TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION DATED
14.09.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE LAND TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN
APPEAL NO. 24/2020 ON THE FILE LAND REFORMS
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA SUBMITTED BY
THE PEITTIONERS.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION AS I.A. NO.
62/2020 IN APPEAL NO.24/2020 ON THE FILE
LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS REGARDING THE
CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF OLD
HOMESTEAD.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
