M N PAUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of us sitting single when hearing the Civil Revision Petition felt that a clarification is called for of an earlier decision of us reported as Kochu Lakshmi v. Velayudhan and others ( 1981 KLT 639 : 1980 KLN 642 ). That is why this revision petition is referred to a Division Bench. The facts necessary to understand the dispute between the parties are the following:

(2.) The second respondent by name Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association represented by its Manager filed an application before the Land Tribunal under S.72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for purchase of the landlord's right. That application was properly notified and the revision petitioner was also given individual notice and he had filed an objection to it, but did not substantiate the same. The Land Tribunal after enquiry found that the applicant is a cultivating tenant entitled to purchase and therefore directed the issue of the purchase certificate to the Association. Long after the period of limitation to file the appeal was over the revision petitioner filed an appeal and applied to excuse delay stating that he knew about the order of the Land Tribunal only three or four days before the filing of the appeal. Anyhow the delay was excused and the Appellate Authority considered the evidence already on record and also the fresh evidence let in by both the parties to prove their respective claims for getting the purchase certificate. Pending the appeal, under a suo motu proceeding initiated by the Land Tribunal an order was passed to issue a purchase certificate to the revision petitioner. This order of the Land Tribunal was passed without notice to the Trust Association and overlooking the order passed earlier by the Land Tribunal to issue the purchase certificate to the applicant. This order was relied on by the appellant to press his claim before the Appellate Authority The Appellate Authority held that the appellant was only an employee of the Association and the real tenant is the Association itself. So the appeal was dismissed. It is against that this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) On the evidence considered by the Appellate Authority there is no scope for arriving at a conclusion different from that of the Appellate Authority. It is clearly established that the revision petitioner is only an employee of the Association and the cultivating tenant is the Association But the argument of the revision petitioner's counsel is that it was not competent for the Appellate Authority to go into the rival claims put forward by the petitioners and the Association and in support of that argument, reference was made to our decision in Kochu Lakshmi v. Velayudhan and others (1981 KLT 639 : 1980 KLN 642) The passage from that decision relied on in support of the argument finds a place in Para.9 of our decision.