S. S. SYED MOIDEEN Vs. CHAKKAN PALLIALIL PATHUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short "the Act"), upset the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Land Tribunal as well as by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority (for short "the Appellate Authority"). Hence, the tenant is in appeal in this Court challenging the impugned order passed by the High Court.

(2.) THE first appellant tenant filed an application under S.72B(3) of the Act for the purchase of jenm rights in the land in question. The Land Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties, concluded that the first appellant was in possession of the property as a cultivating tenant. In that view, the said application was allowed and the rights were granted, as sought for in the application. The respondents challenged the order of the Land Tribunal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, on reappreciation of the entire evidence placed on record in the light of the contentions urged before it, affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the Land Tribunal. We may add here that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is a detailed and well considered order dealing with every piece of evidence. Aggrieved by and not satisfied even with the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the respondents pursued the matter further by filing a revision petition before the High Court under S.103 of the Act. The High Court, as already noticed above, found fault with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Land Tribunal as well as by the Appellate Authority. As can be seen from the impugned order, there has been reappreciation of the evidence by the High Court as if it was exercising its jurisdiction as an appellate court.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents made submission supporting the impugned order. He urged that when the appellant failed to prove his possession over the land in question, the High Court was right in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the Land Tribunal as well as by the Appellate Authority.