VAMAKSITY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the petitioner in the Original Petition is directed against the judgment in O. P. No. 875 of 1981 to the extent that the learned Judge quashed the decision of the Executive Officer, Exts. P2 and P3, against which orders, according to the appellant, she had no complaint. The respondents are the State of Kerala, the Executive Officer, Ochira Panchayat, the Ochira Panchayat Committee and one K. Aravindakshan. The facts leading to the filing of the Original Petition can be briefly stated:

(2.) The petitioner, her husband and daughter own 55 cents of land in Perinad Village situated within the Ochira Panchayat. One Vijayan was granted a licence as per Ext. P5 for 10 years for the purpose of conducting a cinema theatre in the property. O. S. No. 122 of 1980 of the Karunagappally Munsiff's Court, was filed by the petitioner and others against Vijayan for recovery of possession of the property. In this suit Vijayan filed Ext. P8 written statement claiming to be in possession of the property as a lessee and in the alternative, entitled to the benefits of S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is stated that the question of tenancy in this suit has been referred to the Land Tribunal concerned for its finding on the question of tenancy set up.

(3.) The 4th respondent who is said to be the brother of the said Vijayan applied to the Executive Officer of the Panchayat, the 2nd respondent herein, for grant of a licence for conducting the cinema in the property for the years 1978-79, under the provisions of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958. It is seen that Vijayan had conducted cinema shows in the site from 1966 to 1969 and thereafter the 4th respondent was conducting cinema shows. There is dispute whether the 4th respondent was acting as the Manager of Vijayan or whether he was conducting cinema by himself, When the 4th respondent applied for licence for the years 1978-79, the appellant and her daughter objected to the issuance of the licence. By this order dated 19-10-1979, the 2nd respondent rejected the application on the ground that the conditions necessary for such an application were not satisfied by the applicant. Aggrieved by this order, the 4th respondent filed OP. No. 4163 of 1979 challenging that order. The appellant was not impleaded. Getting to know of the filing of the petition, the appellant got herself impleaded in the said Original Petition.