T.F.Joseph vs The Land Tribunal, Tripunithura
2022 Latest Caselaw 2474 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
 FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                 OP(C) NO. 1009 OF 2020
 AGAINST THE ORDER IN R.C.NO.1 OF 2012 OF LAND TRIBUNAL,
                         ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF :

         T.F.JOSEPH
         AGED 82 YEARS
         S/O. (LATE) CHEKKAMMA, THATTATHUSSERY HOUSE,
         SYRIAN CHURCH ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31.
         BY ADVS.
         M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN
         SRI.V.S.SREEJITH
         SRI.RINU. S. ASWAN
         SMT.ALEENA MARIA JOSE
         SMT.M.ARDRA KRISHNAN
         SMT.SUSAN JACOB (S-3481)
         SRI.K.SUNIL


RESPONDENTS/TRIBUNAL & DEFENDANTS 2, 3, 5 ,6 &7:

    1    THE LAND TRIBUNAL, TRIPUNITHURA
         REPRESNTED BY SPECIAL THASILDAR,
         MINI CIVIL STATION, TRIPUNITHURA,
         PIN - 682 301.
    2    MARY,
         W/O. LATE BABU, AGED 55 YEARS,
         KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
         SYRIAN CHURCH ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
         KOCHI - 31.
    3    ROSSY,
         W/O. LATE K. L. JOSEPH,
         AGED 76 YEARS, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
         SYRIAN CHURCH ROAD,
         ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31.
 O.P.(C)No.1009 of 2020
                                       ..2..




     4          GLANCY,
                AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. LATE BABU,
                KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
                SYRIAN CHURCH ROAD,
                ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31.
     5          JOSSY,
                AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. LATE LASSAR,
                PAZHAYAMTHOTTATHIL (H),
                SHAPPUMPADY JUNCTION,
                KUMBALANGHI - 682 007.
     6          JOHNY,
                AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
                S/O. LATE LASSAR,
                PAZHAYAMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE,
                MULAVUKADU P. O.,
                MULAVUKADU, PIN - 682 504.
                BY ADVS.
                SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
                SMT.SAIPOOJA
                BY SRI.DENNY DEVASSY, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER




         THIS    OP   (CIVIL)    HAVING        COME   UP    FOR    ADMISSION    ON
04.03.2022,        THE   COURT    ON   THE       SAME      DAY    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(C)No.1009 of 2020
                                      ..3..




                         O.P.(C)No.1009 of 2020
               -----------------------------------------------


                            JUDGMENT

In this case, order in R.C.No.1 of 2012 dated

05.02.2020 in O.S.No.878 of 2010 is under challenge at the

instance of the plaintiff.

2. Heard Adv.Sri.M.S.Unnikrishnan, the learned

counsel for the petitioner and Adv.Smt.Sai Pooja, the learned

counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and others not represented.

First respondent appears through Sri.Denny Devassy, the

learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that even though reference was made under

section 125(3) of the Land Reforms Act, in respect of the

property comes to an extent of 9.699 cents and the same was

answered, O.A.No.195 of 2010 filed by the third respondent has

been still pending before the Land Tribunal. He submitted

further that the Land Tribunal considered the OA, on the O.P.(C)No.1009 of 2020 ..4..

ground that the expertise of a licensed surveyor is required to

survey and demarcate the property to adjudicate the OA.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the reference was made at the instance of the

plaintiff in the suit and in the said suit, the applicant in OA also

is a party. Therefore, he is bound by the decision of the Land

Tribunal by answering the reference. Therefore, the OA, as

such, now pending needs no adjudication. In this connection,

the learned counsel for the petitioner placed a decision of this

Court reported in [1992(1) KLT 630], Narayana Kamath v.

Govinda Prabhu. In the said decision, it has been held that

the Land Tribunal is not competent to enquire into the dispute

of tenancy in a separate application filed by the tenant, in a

case, the Land Tribunal had received a reference from the civil

court. The only course open to the Land Tribunal is to decide

the dispute referred to it by the civil court and return the

records together with its decision to that court. So long as the

decision on the question of tenancy has become final, the Land O.P.(C)No.1009 of 2020 ..5..

Tribunal is not competent to permit the tenancy to purchase

the rights of the landlord.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for

respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that respondent No.3 herein is the

applicant in O.A.No.195 of 2010 and the third respondent is

satisfied with 2 ½ cents of property now found by the Land

Tribunal, while answering R.C.No.1 of 2012. This submission is

recorded.

6. It is relevant to note that as far as the

challenge against the finding of the Land Tribunal in R.C.No.1 of

2012 is concerned, this Court cannot adjudicate upon in a

petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and

the said finding shall be considered by the learned Munsiff and

appropriate decision in the suit has to be taken in accordance

with law.

7. Therefore, I am not inclined to address the

challenge in R.C.No.1 of 2012. However, I make it clear that

the ratio of the decision cited in Narayana Kamath's case O.P.(C)No.1009 of 2020 ..6..

(supra) can be placed before the Land Tribunal, if the Land

Tribunal proposed to adjudicate the O.A., despite the fact that

the third respondent herein submitted that he is satisfied with

2 ½ cents of property as found in R.C.No.1 of 2012, to defend

the case and to appraise the Land Tribunal regarding the legal

position.

This original petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE rkj O.P.(C)No.1009 of 2020 ..7..

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1009/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED PLAINT IN O.S.NO.878 OF 2010 DATED 03.9.2010 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS DATED NIL IN O.S.NO.878 OF 2010.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2012 IN O.S.NO.878 OF 2010 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.195 OF 2010 BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL, TRIPUNITHURA DATED 07.12.2010.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN EXT.P4 ORIGINAL APPLICATION DATED 15.02.2014.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY THE JUDGMENT DATED 30TH AUGUST 2019 IN O.P.(C) NO.2047/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS IN O.A.195/2010 BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 31.07.2008 ISSUED FROM THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE BEARING NO.D-4603/08 PURSUANT TO THE PETITION FILED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

O.P.(C)No.1009 of 2020 ..8..

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05.02.2020 IN R.C.NO.1/2012.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(a): THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 23/12/2005, IN A.S.NO.398/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. EXHIBIT R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY ADV.MITHUN.C.THOMAS IN I.A.NO.8035/2019 IN O.S.NO.878/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT R2(c): TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 19/03/2020 IN I.A.NO.8036/2019 IN O.S.878/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.