LAWS(KER)-1999-2-16

A GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT Vs. KAVERI AMMA

Decided On February 18, 1999
A.GOPALKRISHNA BHAT Appellant
V/S
KAVERI AMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur in A. A. No. 6/90. Petitioners are the owners of 2 acres and 8 cents of agricultural land comprised in R.S. 624/IA, R.S. 622/5A, R.S. 622/1, R.S. 603/2B and R.S. 602/5 of Beypur Village of Kasaragod Taluk. Respondents 1 to 12 are the tenants of the petitioners. The petitioners are small holders and hence application was filed for resumption of the holding before the Land Tribunal, Kannur and the same was registered as O. A. No. 56/71. Finally this Court confirmed the order of resumption of one half of the holding in favour of the revision petitioners as per order in C.R.P. No. 1672/84 dated 11.2.1987. But in spite of the order passed by this Court, till now the petitioners have not been given possession of the land allowed to be resumed. The petitioners filed application No. A31/88 for arrears of rent due on 13.4.85, 13.4.86 and 13.4.87 before the Land Tribunal, Kannur. The Land Tribunal allowed the claim limiting however the claim for rent to the fair rent payable calculated at 75% of the contract rent The Land Tribunal by order dated 25.8.1989 directed the respondents to pay the revision petitioners a sum of Rs. 16,455.60 within six months with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

(2.) Against the above order, respondents 1 to 9 preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority as A.A. No. 6/90. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal in part limiting the claim of the revision petitioners to one half of the rent payable even at the rate of fair rent calculated by the Land Tribunal and further observing that even the one half is payable to the revision petitioners only till the date of disposal of C.R.P. No. 1672/84.

(3.) As already stated, C.R.P. No. 1672/84 was disposed of on 11.2.1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri. V. Sivaswamy contended that till the resumption application was disposed of and possession of the resumed property was given to the landlords, the holding does not vest to the Government. Even though the application by the petitioners was only for resumption of one half the entire holding, the other half will vest only after the resumption is complete. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents Smt. Sumathi Dandapani contended that the application for resumption was only filed for one half of the holding and the other half of the holding will vest on the date of notification by the Government. The second half will vest depending upon the order passed. Further it was contended that vesting is complete when once the resumption orders are passed and one need not wait for delivery of possession. Learned counsel supported the order of the Appellate Authority. I am told that there is no reported decision on this question. Hence, I am guided by the Act and the Rules.