K.K.V.JANAKI AMMA Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for issuance of a certificate of purchase after receiving purchase price. The petitioners were granted in their favour the right, title and interest over the property covered by S.M.No.1646/1978 of the Land Tribunal No.II, Payyannur. The property in question is having an extent of 80 cents lying in R.S. No.156/5 of Peringome amsom desom. The said order was passed by the Land Tribunal, dismissing it. By Ext.P1 order, the Appellate Authority, after cancelling the earlier order passed by the Land Tribunal, remanded the matter for consideration in A.A. No.5674/1978. Ext.P2 is the order passed thereafter by the Land Tribunal allowing the claims. It is stated that after Ext.P2, the petitioners did not apply for the certificate of purchase, though they have remitted Rs.38.40 as purchase price. After the petitioners filed an application dated 18.12.2008 for grant of certificate of purchase, Ext.P3 communication was given stating that the concerned file was missing. A writ petition was filed as W.P.(C) No.37254/2010 wherein this Court directed the respondents to reconstruct the file and to consider the W.P.(C).No.11713/2012 -2 - application for purchase certificate. The petitioners were asked to produce the proof of payment of purchase price as per Ext.P5 communication. The petitioners filed a reply stating that it was remitted, but its proof was missing. It was also informed that the petitioners are ready to effect payment of purchase price once again. This was answered by Ext.P7 stating that the petitioners have not remitted the purchase price and hence no further action can be taken in the matter and the application cannot be considered.

(2.) The petitioners contend for the position that in the light of Sections 72P and and 72M(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'), the petitioners are entitled to remit the purchase price without any limitation of time.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is mainly pointed out that as the purchase price was not remitted within the time allowed by Ext.P2, in the light of Section 59(3) of the Act, the petitioners are not entitled for issuance of purchase certificate. It is therefore contended that purchase price cannot be allowed to be remitted at this point of time and the assignment order will stand cancelled.