SHARADHA C Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 17th respondent in O.A. No. 3714 of 1976 of Land Tribunal, Kahnangad, who was the 14th respondent in A.A. No. 584 of 1997 on the file of Appellate Authority (LR) Kannur is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the appellate authority allowing the appeal filed by respondents 2 to 19.

(2.) Nine persons together filed an Original Application under Section 72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 (for short, the K.L.R. Act) read with Rule 4 of Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970 for assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner and intermediary in respect of the petition scheduled property. The first respondent in the O.A. was the land owner. Third respondent was the intermediary. Second respondent was the assignee of the third respondent - intermediary. In the Original Application it was averred that the petition scheduled land was given on lease to the applicants as per a Registered Kushikkanam Lease Deed No. 417 of 1946 and the applicants are tenants as defined in Section 2(57) of the K.L.R. Act and hence they are entitled to get fixity of tenure. The first respondent filed a counter contending that the plot was leased out for constructing a cinema theater complex and the lease was granted for commercial purpose and hence the applicants are not tenants within the meaning of K.L.R. Act. Hence it was prayed that the petition may be dismissed. Second respondent in the O.A. who was the assignee of the third respondent, filed a counter stating that the property covered by the lease is a commercial site and the lease dated 18-2-1946 was for a commercial purpose and the transaction is one coming under Section 106 of the K.L.R. Act. It was contended that land was not given for agricultural purpose and hence petitioners are not entitled to get fixity of tenure. Before Land Tribunal, applicants produced Lease Deed No. 417 of 1946 dated 20-2-1946. A Revenue Inspector was deputed to conduct a local inspection, who filed a report, which was marked as Ext.C1. The Land Tribunal held that the lease was for agricultural purpose and hence the applicants are entitled to fixity of tenure. Second respondent in O.A. filed A.A. No. 412 of 1982 before the Appellate Authority (LR) Kasaragod challenging the decision of the Land Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, second respondent died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional appellants. The Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Land Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 584 of 1983 before this Court challenging the orders. This Court as per order dated 14-6-1989 set aside the orders passed by appellate authority and Land Tribunal. The case was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. Tribunal was directed to give opportunity to the parties to adduce fresh evidence. While remanding the matter, this Court held that the lower authorities had not considered whether respondents 1 to 9 in the C.R.P., who were the applicants, are cultivating tenants within the meaning of the K.L.R. Act.

(3.) After remand, on the side of the applicants P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. On the side of the revision petitioner, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. Exts.P1 to P3 and R1 and R2 proved and marked. After remand, Special Revenue Inspectors inspected the property twice and filed Exts.C2 and C3 reports. The Land Tribunal, after considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that the lease in question was one exempted under Section 3(1)(iii) of the K.L.R. Act and hence the applicants are not entitled to claim fixity of tenure over the property and dismissed the application. Challenging that decision, respondents 1 and 3 to 18 and predecessor-in-interest of respondents 19 to 22 filed A.A. No.584 of 1997 before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Kannur. Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Land Tribunal and found that the lease was for agricultural purpose. Appeal was allowed holding that applicants are entitled to get fixity of tenure. Challenging that order, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.