ATHURA SEVA SANGHOM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act arises from the Suo Motu Proceeding S.M.1464 of 1982 initiated by the Land Tribunal, Ottapalam purporting to exercise jurisdiction under S.72C of the Act. The land owner appeared on receipt of notice and disputed the claim of the revision petitioner who got the proceeding initiated. The Land Tribunal held that the revision petitioner was not a cultivating tenant as defined in the Act and hence was not entitled to an order of assignment in terms of S.72B or S.72C of the Act. Thus the Land Tribunal dropped the proceedings. The revision petitioner filed an appeal A.A. 49 of 1984 invoking S.102 of the Act. The Appellate Authority confirmed the decision of the Land Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. The Revision Petitioner filed this Revision before this Court invoking S.103 of the Act. A Single Judge of this Court by order dated 24.7.1989 allowed the Revision and upheld the claim of the revision petitioner. The land owner went up in appeal to the Supreme Court as C.A. No. 8401 of 1995. The Supreme Court allowed that appeal and setting aside the decision of the Single Judge in Revision remanded the Revision for a fresh hearing and decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also suggested that it would be appropriate if a Division Bench were to hear the revision thus remanded. That is how, this revision has been posted before us for hearing as directed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.

(2.) The land in question belongs to a Devaswom, a Hindu Religious Institution governed by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The land belonging to the Devaswom could be sold or leased out only on the basis of sanction to be obtained from the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. The sanction was granted by the Commissioner on 3.4.1961 for leasing out 300 acres of land and the lease was granted on 21.2.1964. According to the revision petitioner he entered the property based on the lease dt. 21.2.1964 which in turn was based on the order of sanction dated 3.4.1961. Meanwhile the Government exercised its power under S.99 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and in exercise of its revisional power set aside the order of sanction granted by the Commissioner on 3.4.1961 and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the question of sanction. The revision petitioner filed O.P. 1877 of 1968 before this Court challenging the revisional order passed by the Government. There were other leases also granted pursuant to such sanction by the same Commissioner and in those cases also the Government had interfered in exercise of its jurisdiction under S.99 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The Writ Petitions filed in those cases ultimately came up for hearing before a Full Bench of this Court. The Full Bench by judgment dt. 19.8.1970 reported as Ayyappan Pillai v. State of Kerala ( 1970 KLT 838 ) dismissed the Original Petitions finding that the circumstances clearly justified interference in revision by the Government. Since the case of the revision petitioner stood on an identical footing, the learned Judge before whom O.P. 1877 of 1968 came up for hearing dismissed that Original Petition in the light of the decision of the Full Bench in Ayyappan Pillai v. State of Kerala (1970 KLT 838). Thus the cancellation of the sanction to lease stood confirmed. Thereafter the sanction was denied with the result that the lease in favour of the revision petitioner became ineffective or void as against the land owner Devaswom. There was also a formal cancellation of the lease in the light of the subsequent developments.

(3.) According to the revision petitioner the lease granted was of forest land to which the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act applied. The revision petitioner was in occupation of the land on the basis of a lease granted by the Devaswom for a period of two years within twelve years immediately preceding 11.4.1967. Hence the revision petitioner was a deemed tenant within the meaning of S.7D of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The revision petitioner was hence entitled to fixity of tenure under S.13 of the Act and consequently entitled to an assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner in terms of S.72 and S.72B of the Act. It may be noted that the suo motu proceedings was initiated on the basis that the revision petitioner was holding the land under a lease granted by the Devaswom and the lease is valid. But before the Land Tribunal, in the face of the objection raised by the Devaswom which brought the relevant facts to the notice of the Land Tribunal, the revision petitioner adopted the stand that it was entitled to claim right based on S.7D of the Act. In other words the revision petitioner sought to pitch its case only on S.7D of the Act. The Land Tribunal took the view that having set up a case of specific lease which was found void, it was not open to the revision petitioner to raise a claim based on S.7D of the Act. The Appellate Authority also agreed with that conclusion. It was thus that the proceeding for assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner to the revision petitioner was dropped by the authorities below. It is this decision that is questioned in this revision by the revision petitioner. Under S.103 of the Act, this Court is entitled to interfere with the decision of the Appellate Authority if the Appellate Authority has failed to decide or has erroneously decided a question of law.