VARKEY Vs. HARIHARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Our learned brother, Justice Krishnamoorthy opined that it is difficult to agree with the reasoning in 1988 (1) KLT 289 (Ayyappan v. Narayanan Namboodiri) and referred this case for the decision of a Division Bench. Before considering the question referred, we feel that we must give a resume of the facts of the case.

(2.) Petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition are tenants of an extent of land which belonged to the first respondent, now dead. The land owner filed OA No. 556 of 1965 before the Land Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. It was renumbered as OA No. 210 of 1977 and again renumbered as OA 397/77 of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Tribunal, Alleppey. The application was filed under S.15 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, for short, the Act, for resumption of the scheduled property 51 cents, for the purpose of constructing a building for the applicant. As an alternative prayer, applicant claimed that if the entire property cannot be resumed by the applicant, he should be allowed to resume that extent of land determined by the Land Tribunal, for the purpose of constructing a building for the applicant. In the application, the applicant claimed that he is a small holder. It is also stated in the application that the tenants have got 2 acres of garden land and 2 acres of paddy land. It was contended that the applicant landlord had no other property, other than the property scheduled in the application to construct a building for his residence.

(3.) Originally, the application was allowed holding that the applicant is entitled to resume one-half of the scheduled property under S.17 of the Act. The applicant was directed to apply for passing a final order for resumption. The original applicant died; his legal representatives got themselves impleaded. They filed IA No. 301 of 1974 before the Munsiff Land Tribunal, Ernakulam, and the same was transferred to the Deputy Collector (Land Tribunal) Alleppey as IA No. 232/75. It was found that the applicants are in possession of more than 4 ordinary acres as owner and so, they are not entitled to resumption and dismissed the application. An appeal was preferred as LRAS No. 798/76 before the Appellate Authority (LR) Ernakulam, against the order passed by the Land Tribunal on 25-6-1976. The Appellate Authority found that the Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review its order on the basis of a subsequent decision of the High Court and the order was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The appellate authority also observed that the Tribunal may also consider the valid objections, if any, raised, regarding the maintainability of the application for resumption for passing the final order for resumption.