M D SEMINARY Vs. P J JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions arising for consideration in these Civil Revision Petitions are identical and therefore they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Respondents in these revision petitions, except the State of Kerala, claiming themselves to be cultivating tenants, filed applications under S.72B of the KLR Act for the purchase of the right, title and interest of the landlord in respect of the respective holdings held by them. The Land Tribunal entering the finding that they are cultivating tenants, allowed the applications. The Appellate Authority concurred with the above finding of the Land Tribunal and as a result of which, the appeals filed by the landowner were dismissed by the orders under challenge in the revision petitions.

(3.) Facts essential to decide the questions lie in a narrow compass; and virtually, they are admitted: The holdings are held under written documents, styled as verumpattam deeds. The deeds, according to the tenants, evidence transactions creating tenancies. The landowner however, contends that they create only licences. The landowner has a further case that the lands involved in the cases, are not agricultural lands and hence the provisions of the KLR Act are not applicable to them.