RAPHELS CHURCH Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam in a proceedings under Section 80A of the Land Reforms Act. Respondents 2 to 6 have filed a joint application before the Land Board for purchase of kudikidappu. The case of the petitioner is that in fact the predecessor in interest and the party respondents also have earlier filed petitions and the same were turned down as per Exts.P1, P2 and P4. Thereafter, without giving notice to the petitioner herein, respondents 2 to 6 and others have approached the Land Tribunal in OA.No.33/2003 and have obtained an order of purchase of kudikidappu. The petitioner on coming to know have approached the Land Tribunal with an application to set aside the exparte order. This was dismissed as per Ext.P5 order.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the party respondents have already approached the Land Tribunal for purchase of kudikidappu and that application was dismissed holding that they are not entitled to purchase kudikidappu, the present application for purchase is not maintainable. It is further pointed out that the Land Tribunal has erred in dismissing the application to set aside the exparte order filed by the petitioner.

(3.) EXT .P5 is the rejection order passed by the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, Alappuzha challenging the order granting kudikidappu. I am of the view if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal granting purchase, the remedy is before the appellate authority to challenge that order. In view of the above it is not necessary to retain this writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, all matters raised herein have to be decided by the appellate authority. This Court while admitting the writ petition stayed all further proceedings pursuant to issuance of purchase certificate. That order will continue for a period of three months or till the application to condone delay in appeal is decided by the appellate authority. The writ petition is disposed of as above.