VAISYAN SEBASTIAN Vs. AUGUSTEENJU MARSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I see no ground to interfere with the Tribunal's order. The petitioner made an application under S. 13a of the Land Reforms Act for restoration of possession on the ground that be had been dispossessed of his land in his occupation on or after the 1st day of April 1964. The section in so far as it is relevant reads as follows: "13-A (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of court, where any person has been dispossessed of the land in his occupation on or of after the 1st day of April; 1964, such person shall, if he would have been a tenant under this Act as amended by the Kerala Land reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, at the time of such dispossession, be entitled subject to the provisions of this section to restoration of possession of the land Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall (a) apply in any case where the said land has been sold to a bona fide purchaser for consideration before the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Bill, 1968, in the gazette". The Land Tribunal found that there was no "dispossession" of the petitioner from the land within the meaning of the section and that the petitioner had voluntarily surrendered the land under registered document, Ext. P2. The recital in Ext. P2 has been extracted by the land Tribunal in Ext. PI order. The said recital reads: The petitioner's Counsel is right in bis contention that the sub-clause in S. 13a of the Act gives the petitioner a right, despite the recital in Ext. P2 to prove that he had been dispossessed of the land and had not voluntarily surrendered possession of the same. But, as noted by the Land tribunal in its order, far from proving or attempting to prove this, when the petitioner was examined as pw. 1, he admitted in cross-examination that the document provided that possession bad been surrendered and that what was stated in the document was correct. The Tribunal was right in its conclusion that dispossession in the section means not a voluntary surrender of the land. The meaning of the expression in relation to Art. 144 of the Limitation Act was explained by a Full Bench of this Court in Pappy Amma v. Prabhakaran Nair (1971 klt. 431 ). There, it was pointed out that 'dispossession' implies taking possession without the consent of the person in possession. In the light of the above principle, and on the facts stated in Ext. P2 and admitted to be correct by pw. 1, the Land Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the petitioner had not been dispossessed from the land and in dismissing the application filed under S. 13a. I dismiss the writ petition, but without costs. Dismissed. . .