Chandrasekharan Pillai @ Thampi v. Land Tribunal Ernakulam and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.17926 OF 2019(M)** ## **PETITIONER:** **CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLA @ THAMPI, AGED 76 YEARS** **S/O. KARUNAKARA PILLA, KOTTARAPPATTU VEEDU, ALUVA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 101** **BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.K.V.WINSTON SMT.ANU JACOB** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE LAND TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR), POONITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 038** - **2 CARDAMOM MARKETING COMPANY LTD. KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM-686 013, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **3 INDIRA, W/O. PADMANABHA MENON, KOTTARAPPATTU VEEDU, ALUVA P.O, PIN-683 101** - **4 K.K. AMBIKA DEVI, W/O. CAPTAIN K.P. RAJAN, JAFARKHAN COLONI, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 004.** - **5 K.K. CHANDRIKA DEVI, W/O. DIVAKARAN PILLA, THEKKINIYEDATH VEEDU, DESAM P.O, ALUVA, PIN-683 102** - **6 K.K. SAROJINI AMMA, W/O. R. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, MANIMANDIRAM, CHAMMANNATHKARA, THEKKENADA, VAIKOM VILLAGE, VAIKOM P.O, PIN-686 141.** **7 DR. ANITHA, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O. K.K. RADHAKRISHNAN (LATE), C/O. DR. PADMINI RADHAKRISHNAN, KOTTARAPATTU HOUSE, THURUTH DESOM, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE, DESAM P.O, ALUVA, PIN-683 103** **WP(C).No.17926 OF 2019(M)** **2** **8 ABHILASH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. K.K. RADHAKRISHNAN(LATE), C/O. DR. PADMINI RADHAKRISHNAN, KOTTARAPATTU HOUSE, THURUTH DESAM, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE, DESAM P.O, ALUVA, PIN-683 103** **9 DR. PADMINI RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O. K.K. RADHAKRISHNAN (LATE), KOTTARAPATTU HOUSE, THURUTH DESAM, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE, DESAM P.O, ALUVA, PIN-683 103** **R3-6 BY ADVS. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN** **SMT MABLE C KURIAN, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.17926 OF 2019(M)** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** Exhibit P5 order passed by the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam in I.A. No 25/2018 in SMP No.61/1991 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner seeking to stay the Suo Moto Proceedings until a decision is taken by the Additional District Court, North Paravur in L.A O.P No.57/2018 was repelled. It would be worthwhile to mention that L.A O.P No.57/2018 is a petition filed by the petitioner before the Additional District Court seeking to probate a will said to have been executed by his father bequeathing the jenmam land in his favour. 2. To appreciate the rival contentions, the facts need to be stated in some detail:- Late Sri Karunakaran Pillai was the tenant in possession of property having an extent of 14.20 cents of land comprised in Sy No.209/31 of Aluva West Village. He died intestate in the year 1980 leaving behind his wife, 4 daughters and two sons. The Land Tribunal appears to have initiated suo motu proceedings under Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970 (for short 'Land Reforms Rules') for assignment of the right, title and interest of the said land to the cultivating **WP(C).No.17926 OF 2019(M)** **4** tenant in possession, under Section 72B of the Land Reforms Act. The petitioner herein is one of the sons of Late Karunakaran Pillai. The landlord arrayed as respondent in the petition was the Chairman, The Cardamon marketing Co (TRV). Acting on the affidavit filed by the petitioner herein, the Tribunal by Exhibit P1 order came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to the assignment of the Jenmam right of the respondent landowner in respect of the holding to his name. A certificate of purchase was ordered to be issued. 3. On getting information about the issuance of Exhibit P2 purchase certificate, the 3rd respondent, daughter of late Karunakaran, approached the Appellate Authority ( LR) Thrissur and filed an appeal under Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 4. The Appellate Tribunal, after a detailed evaluation of the materials and the facts and circumstances, came to the conclusion that the Land Tribunal had ordered the issuance of purchase certificate without following the statutory provisions and solely based on the affidavit filed by the petitioner. None of the other legal heirs were made parties to the proceeding. Even in the affidavit filed before the tribunal, what was contended by the petitioner was that he was possessing the property after the death of his father as his legal heir. The Appellate Tribunal came to the **WP(C).No.17926 OF 2019(M)** **5** conclusion that the sole material before the Land Tribunal was the affidavit filed by the petitioner and that the order was passed without conducting any enquiry or verifying the documents. The order dated 15.12.1992 was accordingly set aside and the case was remanded back to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal after impleading all interested parties. 5. After the remand, and during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner came up with a Will said to have been executed by the father on 5.12.1979 bequeathing the property to the petitioner. The execution of the Will was denied by the respondents and they took a contention that the same was forged. 6. The Land Tribunal by Exhibit P4 dated 30.6.2018 took the view that the powers conferred upon the Land Tribunal as per the provisions of the Act and Rules did not authorise the Tribunal to decide on the question of authenticity of a document such as a Will. The Will was duly returned to the petitioner with a direction to prove it in accordance with law in appropriate probate proceedings. 7. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed IA No. 25/2018 seeking to stay the proceedings until the Will is probated by the District Court. The Tribunal took the view that the limited jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 72 of the Land Reforms Act and as per the Rules is to only **WP(C).No.17926 OF 2019(M)** **6** ascertain whether the person claiming himself to be the tenant as defined under Section 2(57) is entitled to assignment of such right, title or interest and nothing more. His application to keep in abeyance the proceedings was rejected. The said order is under challenge in this petition. 8. I have heard Sri Jacob Sebastian, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S.Vinod Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 9. I find that Late Karunakaran Pillai, the original tenant, had expired on 25.6.1980. The Will which is relied on by the petitioner is dated 5.12.1979. But curiously enough, the petitioner did not assert either before the Land Tribunal or the Appellate tribunal about the existence of the Will. This was disclosed before the Tribunal only in the year 2018 after the remand. When the Land Tribunal was confronted with the Will, Exhibit P4 order was passed holding that the limited jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal to determine the tenancy right did not enable the forum to decide on the authenticity of the Will. It was in the said circumstances, that the Land Tribunal had passed Exhibit P4 order holding that it had no jurisdiction to decide on the authenticity of the Will. Under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1970 read with Section 72 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to assign such right, title and interest to the cultivating tenants. It has been held in **Paul v.** **WP(C).No.17926 OF 2019(M)** **7** **State of Kerala** (1981 KLT 721) that if the tenancy devolves on more than one person and one of the coheirs applies for the issue of purchase certificates without disclosing the existence of the rights of other coheirs, the Land Tribunal is not required to determine the quantum of the share in the tenancy because even if the person purchased all the rights of the landlord, it will enure to the benefit of the other co-tenants under the principle of quasi trust. It is also settled that disputes inter se between cultivating tenants is not a matter for determination of Land Tribunal in an enquiry regarding the vesting of rights of the landlord and the intermediaries in the cultivating tenant by the issue of a purchase certificate to him (See **Kochulakshmi v. Velayudhan** (1981 KLT 639). In that view of the matter, as rightly held by the Land Tribunal, there was no need to wait for the final judgment or decree in the probate proceedings for deciding on grant of rights under the Land Reforms Act. Ext.P5 order passed by the Tribunal is unexceptionable and I find no reason to interfere with the same. This writ petition will stand dismissed. ## **Sd/-** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **JUDGE** NS **WP(C).No.17926 OF 2019(M)** **8** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED DECEMBER 15, 1992 IN SMP NO. 61/1991 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2** **A TRUE COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NUMBER 33/1993 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE WILL DATED DECEMBER 5, 1979 EXECUTED BY LATE KARUNAKARAN PILLA.** **EXHIBIT P4** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED JUNE 30, 2018 IN SMP NO. 61/1991 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED JANUVARY 19, 2019 IN I.A NO. 25/2018 IN SMP NO. 61/91 PENDING BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R3(A) COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SMP 61/1991 BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.** **EXHIBIT R3(B)** **COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.10.1999 IN A.A.3/1994 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), THRISSUR.**