GEORGE MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners had purchased 12 acres, 20.30 acres and 6.14 acres respectively in Sy. No. 173/1A1A in Padinjarethara amsom, South Wynad Taluk of the erstwhile Kozhikode District for valuable consideration. The above lands were parts of lands covered by a kanom demise in favour of one Shri. Dominic Joseph as per registered deed No. 598/1943 dated 28-5-1943. At the time when the petitioners purchased these lands there were registered partitions. The original kanomdar, Shri. Dominic Joseph, had filed O. A. Nos. 738, 741 and 744 of 1973 before the Land Tribunal, Kalpetta for the purchase of the right, title and interests of the landlord, in respect of certain properties including the lands subsequently transferred to the petitioners. It was during the pendency of those proceedings that the legal representatives of Shri. Dominic Joseph assigned those properties to various persons including the petitioners. In the ceiling cases under S.85 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act taken against the petitioners, it was found that the lands had been converted into and registered as plantations. Suo motu proceedings for assignment of the right, title and interest in favour of the petitioners, who were in possession of the lands were initiated in S.M.C. Nos. 331, 332 and 333/81, 177, 178 and 181 of 1983 and 179/83. The jenmi of the properties was made a party to those proceedings and notices were also served on all parties entitled to such notice. Those proceedings were allowed and certificates for purchase were issued in favour of the petitioners on 21-3-1984.

(2.) The fourth respondent, who claims to be one of the legal representatives of the deceased jenmi, filed appeals before the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Land Reforms Act as A. A. Nos. 119 and 122 of 1984 (O.P. No. 3503 of 1984), 120 of 1985 (OP. No. 3764 of 1985) and 85, 86 and 87 of 1984 (O.P. No. 3359 of 1985). challenging the orders in the suo motu proceedings referred to above. Admittedly, the appeals were filed far out of time. Admittedly again, the appeals were accompanied by applications for condonation of delay. Notices were issued on such applications. The delay is yet to be condoned. But, the appellate authority passed orders of interim stay on applications filed by the fourth respondent against orders granting purchase certificates in favour of the petitioners. Petitioners challenge the orders of interim stay.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the second respondent Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) had no jurisdiction to issue interim orders in the nature of Ext. P7 and P9 in OP No 3359 of 1983, Exts. P6 and P7 in OP. No. 3503 of 1985, and Exts. P9 in OP. No. 3764 of 1985. Counsel for the petitioner in OP. No. 3359 of 1985 also invited my attention to the fact that the legal representatives including the party respondents had filed appeals before the Appellate Authority on an earlier occasion stating that OA. Nos. 738, 741, 744 of 1973 etc., had been allowed by the Land Tribunal, Kalpetta without notice to them, and had obtained ex parte orders from the Appellate Authority directing the Range Officer not to issue passes for transport of timber to the petitioners. Petitioners filed OP. No. 1958 of 1983 against such orders and in Ext. P11, obtained orders of stay of the directions of the appellate authority. Reference is also made to Ext P12 judgment of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeals for the reason that the appellants submitted that no orders had been issued by the Land Tribunal in O. A. No. 738 of 1973 series. Counsel submits that the proceedings were initiated before the Appellate Authority with full knowledge and awareness that no orders had been passed by the Land Tribunal in the original applications filed earlier by Shri. Dominic Joseph in an attempt to protract the proceedings and to extract some concessions from the petitioners by use of pressure tactics. The interim orders obtained from the Appellate Authority in the present applications for stay even before the appeals were entertained by condonation of delay in filing the same are also said to be a part of the deliberate design to pressurise the petitioners to make some concessions in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased jenmi. Counsel submitted that since 1943 when the jenmi executed the kanom document in favour of late Shri. Dominic Joseph, the jenmi had ceased to have any right in the property and none were asserted thereafter. Reference is also made to various tactics adopted by the legal representatives of the deceased jenmi to snatch away part of the compensation after they came to know that the lands concerned were likely to be acquired for the Kuttiady Augmentation Scheme.