PUTHANPURAYIL SATHI Vs. PARAMBAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.134/2010 in A.A.No.83/2007 on the file of the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur, raising the question of maintainability of A.A. No.83/2007, an appeal filed by the respondents herein under Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for brevity, 'the Act'), challenging Ext.P2 order No.162/2007/E dated 16.7.2007 of the Land Tribunal, Koothuparamba, by which the survey number and extent of land in Ext.P1 purchase certificate dated 28.2.1977 issued pursuant to suo-motu proceedings in S.M.P.No.1828 of 1976 in C.P.No.6266 of 1977 stands corrected by inclusion of the survey number omitted to be included while issuing the said certificate, i.e., 'R.S.No.89/2B1' and the extent of land in hectors as '1.0929 hectors', which was wrongly shown as '0.0929 hectors', though the extent of land in acres was correctly shown as '2 acres and 70 cents' in the said certificate, by invoking its powers under Rule 136A of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 (for brevity, 'the Tenancy Rules') after conducting a field enquiry and obtaining a report of the Taluk Surveyor, through the Tahsildar, Thalassery.

(2.) In A.A. No.83/2007, the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority, the respondents herein contended, inter alia, that Ext.P2 order of the Land Tribunal correcting the survey number as R.S. No.89/2B1 is improper and vitiated by procedural irregularity, in the absence of a detailed enquiry and proper appreciation of evidence. According to the respondents herein, the petitioners herein have no title over any piece of land in R.S. No.89/2B1. On the other hand, since 1950 the respondents herein as well as their predecessors-in-interest are in actual possession of the property in R.S. No.89/2B1 and they have made valuable improvements in the said land. Though the purchase certificate in question was issued in the year 1977, the petition for correction was made only in the year 2006, after a lapse of nearly 30 years. Therefore, the respondents herein contended that Ext.P2 order of the Land Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Before the Appellate Authority, the petitioners herein filed I.A. No.134/2010 with a request to consider the maintainability of A.A. No.83/2007 as a preliminary issue, contending that the appeal filed against Ext.P2 order passed by the Land Tribunal under Rule 136A of the Tenancy Rules is not legally maintainable under Section 102 of the Act.