K KRISHNADAS, S/O RAMAKRISHNAN MASTER, TYPIST Vs. L S RAGHUNATH, S/O LAKSHMAN NAYAK; KANIYARAKODE VADAKKEPURAKKAL RAMAKRISHNAN MASTER; PALLIKANDI IDIYARAM VEETTIL HASSAN KOYA; SANTHA BAI; LAND TRIBUNAL AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner filed an application for purchase of right, title and interest of ownership and intermediaries of 14 x 10 Asarikol (Carpenterkol) of property in T.S.No. 17-15-632 of Kasba Village. The Revenue Inspector made a recommendation on the application as per Exhibit P1 observing that the extent would be 2.25 cents. As per Exhibit P2 the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode passed orders on the application permitting the petitioner to purchase the right in respect of the said 14 x 10 Asarikol property. But the calculation in terms of centage was given as 2 cents. According to the petitioner, he has filed an application before the Land Tribunal for correcting the extent as 16 cents instead of 2 cents. In the meanwhile, on the application filed by the first respondent, the Land Tribunal passed Exhibit P7 order correcting the actual extent as 1.76 cents since the centage of 14 x 10 Asarikol would be only 1.76 cents. Petitioner has two main contentions. The first contention is that the impugned order Exhibit P7 was passed pursuant to the direction issued by the Appellate Authority as per Exhibit P6. In is the contention that no such appeal lies before the Appellate Authority. The second contention is that when the petitioner's application for correction of the extent as 16 cents is pending, the Tribunal should not have been passed orders on the application for correction filed by the first respondent, without considering the application filed by the petitioner.

(2.) After having heard the learned counsel on both sides and also the learned Government Pleader, I do not think it necessary to go into the first contention since after all what is attempted to be done by the impugned order is only a correction of an alleged clerical mistake. But, I find some force in the contention of the petitioner with regard to the second aspect, namely, when his application for correcting the extent as 16 cents is pending, orders should not have been passed by correcting the extent to his disadvantage after a fairly long period. Therefore, I direct the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode to consider the application pending before it at the instance of the petitioner for correcting the extent as 16 cents in accordance with law. I make it clear that Exhibit P7 order will not stand in the way of the Land Tribunal in passing appropriate orders in the matter. The Tribunal shall issue notice to the parties within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(3.) This original petition is disposed of as above.