NARAYANA BHAKTHAN Vs. ANANTHA NARAYANAPURAM THURAVOOR THIRUMALA DEVASWOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suo motu proceedings were initiated under S.72C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in SMP No. 2/1994 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Pathanamthitta showing the petitioner herein as the cultivating tenant and the respondent herein - Ananthanarayanapuram - Thuravoor Thirumal Devaswom - as the landlord. By order dated 22/08/1997, the Land Tribunal allowed the claim of tenancy in respect of 51 cents of land made by the petitioner herein. On appeal by the landlord as AA No. 196 of 1997, the Appellate Authority (LR), Thiruvananthapuram reversed the order of the Land Tribunal and rejected the claim of tenancy made by the revision petitioner. The petitioner challenges the judgment of the Appellate Authority in this Revision.

(2.) There was an earlier proceeding in respect of 76 cents of land including the extent of 51 cents of land involved in the present proceeding. That proceeding was SMP No. 125 of 1976. There the petitioner and his two brothers were shown as cultivating tenants. The respondent herein was shown as the landlord in that proceeding. The Land Tribunal originally allowed SMP No. 125 of 1976 upholding the claim of tenancy made by the petitioner and his brothers. On appeal by the Devaswom, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the case to the Land Tribunal. After remand, the proceeding was renumbered as OA No. 30 of 1978. By order dated 26/04/1978, the Land Tribunal dismissed the Original Application on the ground that the applicants (revision petitioner herein and others) did not adduce any evidence to prove the tenancy. The applicants in OA No. 30 of 1978 filed appeal against that order. During the pendency of the appeal, there was a compromise between the parties and document registered as No. 508 of 1980 dated 12/05/1980 was executed by the landlord Devaswom demising an extent of 15 cents out of the property in favour of the applicants in the OA. The nomenclature of the document is gift. It is stated in the gift deed that the disputes were compromised at the intervention of the mediators. It is also discernible from the gift deed that the civil suit filed by the applicants against the Devaswom was agreed to be withdrawn. The decision of the Appellate Authority is not on record in the present proceeding.

(3.) In the present proceeding, the revision petitioner did not disclose anything about the earlier proceeding including the compromise. He filed a statement in the present case as if he is a cultivating tenant in respect of 51 cents of land. The Special Revenue Inspector filed a report stating that there was an earlier proceeding which ended in a compromise and an extent of 15 cents of land was made available to the applicants in the earlier proceedings. It is also stated in the Revenue Inspector's report that the said extent of 15 cents was demarcated. On the rear side of the extent of 15 cents of the land, the property belonging to the Devaswom is situated. The present claim of the revision petitioner is in respect of the property on the southern side of 15 cents covered by gift deed.