LAWS(KER)-2007-8-69

JINAN Vs. SPECIAL TAHASILDAR R R

Decided On August 08, 2007
JINAN Appellant
V/S
SPECIAL TAHASILDAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/writ petitioner filed Ext. P1 application dated 18-03-2003 under Section 53 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act before the Land Tribunal. (Hereinafter the appellant is referred to as the 'petitioner'). By Ext. P2 order dated 31-12-2003, the Land Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner is not in possession of the property having an extent of 3.75 acres. The petitioner has also filed Ext. P8 application dated 19-06-2003 before the Land Tribunal. The prayer in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein is to issue a writ of Certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent-Special Tahsildar to decide Exts.Pl and P8 applications after taking evidence. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the property in question, which belonged in jenm to the predecessor in interest of the respondents 2 and 3, was taken on lease by Kochintya, the grand-father of the petitioner in the year 1890. Various subsequent lease deeds were also executed. After the death of Kochintya, his son Velukutty inherited the property. Velukutty died in the year 1968. The petitioner being the son of Velukutty claimed that he is entitled to possess and enjoy the property.

(3.) The Petitioner had filed an application before the Land Tribunal under Section 31 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for fixation of fair rent. That application was dismissed by the Land Tribunal and the dismissal was confirmed by the appellate authority holding that the petitioner is not a cultivating tenant. The petitioner took up the matter in C.R.P. 1101 of 1973 before this court. The said Revision Petition was dismissed by Ext.R3(a) order dated 29-01-1974, wherein it was held that the petitioner is not a cultivating tenant and that Exts. D21 to D26 "Sookshmakychis" executed in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, do not constitute any right as that of a cultivating tenant. This Court held thus: