CHAKKORU Vs. CHANDRAMATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P2 order passed by the District Court, Trichur in CM. Appeal No. 152 of 2000, whereby, Ext.P1 order passed by the Settlement Officer under the Kanam Tenancy Abolition Act, 1976 ('Act' in short), without hearing the respondent herein (who is stated aggrieved party/interested party) remanding the matter for fresh consideration is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner had filed an application before the Special Tahsildar, Trichur claiming possession and 'kanam' right of the property comprised in survey No. 1053, which was considered and decided by the said authority in favour of the petitioner vide Ext.P1 dated 23.12.1998. The said order was challenged by the first respondent by preferring CM. Appeal No. 152/2000 before the District Court along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the same. The District Court, however found that the reasons stated for condoning the delay in filing the appeal were not satisfactory and hence the petition to condone the delay was dismissed, which, as a nature consequence, led to the dismissal of the appeal as well.

(2.) Met with the circumstances, the first respondent challenged the above proceedings by filing O.P. 6295 of 2003 before this Court. After hearing both the sides, this Court vide judgment dated 13.01.2005 held that an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner therein (first respondent herein) to have the matter considered on merits. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, the delay in filing the CM. Appeal was condoned and the appeal was restored and the original petition was disposed of, directing the District Court to finalise the matter on merits within 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Based upon the above judgment, the matter was considered afresh by the court below leading to Ext.P2 verdict which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge is mainly on two grounds; firstly, that the CM. Appeal itself was not maintainable and secondly, that the learned District Judge ought not to have entered into the merits of the case, having chosen to remand the matter for fresh consideration by the Special Tahasildar which otherwise is likely to influence the decision making process to be pursued by the Special Tahasildar. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the appeal is very much maintainable in view of the specific stipulation in the statute and further, having the matter become final by virtue of the judgment passed by this Court in O.P. 6295 of 2003, giving appropriate direction to the District Court to finalise the Appeal on merits.