THAYYIL MUHAMMED Vs. KOORIMANNIL PATTIYIL SHOWKATH ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is leave of the appellate authority required to maintain an appeal by a person not party to the proceedings of the land tribunal The issue arises in the context of Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short).

(2.) Suo motu proceedings were initiated under Section 72C of the Act for assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner and intermediary vested in the government in respect of the holding. The revision petitioner and the second respondent (since deleted) were alone arrayed as the tenant and land owner in the proceedings before the land tribunal. The Land Tribunal-III, Malappuram by order dated 12.09.1997 assigned the right, title and interest of the land owner and intermediary in favour of the revision petitioner. It is not disputed before me that the said order of the land tribunal under Section 72F(5) of the Act is appealable before the appellate authority under Section 102 of the Act.

(3.) The first respondent who was not a party to the order of the land tribunal filed an appeal therefrom under Section 102 of the Act along with an application to condone the delay of 6 years, 4 months and 7 days. The first respondent contended that the revision petitioner had not produced any document to establish his tenancy under the land owner - Manjeri Kovilakam -well before 01.04.1964. The first respondent asserted that it was his grand father who took the property on lease which was later allotted to the share of his father in the partition effected in the family in the year 1986. The first respondent added that his father subsequently assigned the property to him under sale deed (document No. 1766/1997, SRO Manjeri) and that he is the cultivating tenant entitled for certificate of purchase.