PARAMANANDAN, S/O KANTHASWAMY PILLAI, RAJA BICYCLE SHOP, NEW MUNNAR Vs. PHILIP AJOO, CHUNDUVARA ESTATE, S P PURAM P O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision filed under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, is directed against the order dated 2.3.2007 in A.A. No.52 of 2000 before the appellate authority, Alappuzha, whereby the said authority reversed the order in SM proceedings No.9/81 dated 6.11.81 of the Land Tribunal, Devikulam by which purchase certificate was directed to be issued to the respondent herein. It appears that SM proceedings were initiated in respect of the property involved in these proceedings by the Land Tribunal, Devikulam, showing the petitioner herein as the tenant and one James Philip as the owner of the property. Even though notice was issued to the land owner, he did not appear and contest the matter. Based on the evidence adduced by the cultivating tenant, the Land Tribunal, Devikulam, by its order dated 6.11.1981, ordered issuance of purchase certificate under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to the cultivating tenant. The respondent herein challenged the order of the Land Tribunal before the appellate authority in AA No.52/2000, which set aside the order of the Land Tribunal.

(2.) The case of the respondent before this court is that he had obtained assignment of the property under the Land Assignment Act in 1966 and eversince then, he has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property. The father of the petitioner namely, Kanthaswamy was posted as a caretaker of the property and later, he left the employment. At a later point of time, when tax was sought to be paid, it was revealed that Thandaper was changed in the name of the petitioner herein. The respondent submitted before the appellate authority that fraud has been played and a fraudulent purchase certificate has been obtained by the petitioner. Therefore, he approached the appellate authority for necessary orders.

(3.) The appellate authority condoned the delay and by the impugned order, accepted the documents alleged to have been produced by the petitioner. The authority below came to the conclusion that the assignment in favour of the petitioner herein is fraudulent and therefore, set aside the said order. It was also held that the property belongs to the respondent.