AMMALU SUMATHI Vs. KESAVANNAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Legal heirs of deceased first respondent in writ petition No. 9452/1988, who were impleaded as additional respondents 5 to 7 in that petition, arc the appellants herein. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the Original Petition and directed the revenue authorities to effect physical delivery of possession of the property in dispute to the writ petitioner by judgment dated 30th November, 1992. This direction is under challenge.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: One Chellapan Nair, who was a contractor under the Public Works Department, had to pay a sum of Rs.13,861.28 to the Government as damages. For realising that amount, Government initialed proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", and attached 6.30 Acres of land comprised in various survey numbers belonging to the defaulter on 2-1-1974. Out of the attached properties, an extent of 2.85 Acres of land comprised in Survey No.290/4 and 290/3-1 of Vilappil Village in Neyyattinkara Taluk was sold in auction on 30-7-1974. Petitioner in the writ petition purchased those properties for an amount of Rs.14,000/-. The sale in his favour was confirmed and made absolute on 17-3-1976. Certificate of sale was issued to him on 12-5-1981.

(3.) While the above said proceedings under the Act were pending, first respondent in the writ petition took various steps under the Kerala Land Reforms Act to establish her rights over 1.5 Acres of land out of the properties sold in public auction. At first she filed petition under S.72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as O.A. 145/ 1972 before the Land Tribunal, Neyyattinkara for assignment of landlord's right in respect of 1.5 Acres in Survey No. 290/4 of Vilappil Village. Land Tribunal dismissed that application by order dated 27-3-1975. That order was not challenged in appeal and it has become final. Thereafter first respondent in the writ petition filed application under S.29 of the Land Reforms Act for preparation of record of rights. Her contention in that proceeding was that she was holding the properly as per lease and it is separated by well built boundaries. Tahsildar, after due enquiries, came to the conclusion that there is no evidence to show that the said property is in her possession as alleged by her and that the entire area lies in one compact plot except the premises of the house in which she resides. Consequently it was found that she is entitled to claim rights as a kudikidappukari and no further right in the properly. This finding entered by the Tahsildar was challenged in appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer without any success. First respondent in the writ petition challenged the orders of the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer before this Court in O.P.802/1980. This Court by judgment dated 25-11-1980 negatived her contention holding that she has actually no right to get any record of rights prepared in view of the decision in O.A.145/1972.