High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-03-04Original petition disposed of accordingly.

T.F. Joseph v. The Land Tribunal, Tripunithura and Others

Case / Petition Number:OP(C) No.1009 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. BADHARUDEEN
Judgment Date: 2022-03-04
Court Decision / Holding: This original petition is disposed of accordingly. The court is not inclined to adjudicate the challenge in RC No.1/2012 under Article 227, but directs that the ratio of Narayana Kamath v. Govinda Prabhu (1992) 1 KLT 630 can be placed before the Land Tribunal if it intends to adjudicate OA 195/2010, so as to guide the legal position. The Land Tribunal should proceed in accordance with law, with the civil court’s reference, and return records where necessary.
Final Disposition: Original petition disposed of accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

T.F. Joseph

Respondents

The Land Tribunal, Tripunithura
Mary, W/o Late Babu
Rossy, W/o Late K. L. Joseph
Glancy, S/o Late Babu
Jossy, S/o Late Lassar
Johny, S/o Late Lassar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.S. Unnikrishnan
• Sri. V.S. Sreejith
• Sri. Rinu S.
• Aswan
• Smt. Aleena Maria Jose
• Smt. M. Ardra Krishnan
• Smt. Susan Jacob
• Sri. K. Sunil

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Denny Devassy (Senior Government Pleader)
• Smt. Sai Pooja

Case Synopsis & Summary

This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order in RC No.1 of 2012 of the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam, arising from O.S.878 of 2010. The petitioner, T.F. Joseph, asserts that although a reference under section 125(3) of the Land Reforms Act was made regarding 9.699 cents of property, the OA No.195 of 2010 filed before the Land Tribunal remains pending and requires adjudication. His grievance is that the Land Tribunal dismissed or postponed OA on the ground that it requires the expertise of a licensed surveyor to survey and demarcate the property. The petitioner contends that the reference was made at his suit’s instance and, as the applicant in OA, he is bound by the Land Tribunal’s decision; therefore OA should not be adjudicated separately. He places reliance on Narayana Kamath v. Govinda Prabhu (1992(1) KLT 630), arguing that a Land Tribunal cannot independently adjudicate tenancy disputes when a reference has been made by the civil court, and the proper course is to decide the issue within the civil suit and return records. The High Court notes that it cannot adjudicate the challenge under Article 227 but may guide the Land Tribunal by considering the Narayana Kamath ratio if OA is adjudicated. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 125(3) of the Land Reforms ActArticle 227 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Land Tribunal’s limited competence to adjudicate tenancy disputes where a civil court reference exists; ratio from Narayana Kamath v. Govinda Prabhu (1992) 1 KLT 630 may guide proceedings before the Land Tribunal.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that although a reference under section 125(3) of the Land Reforms Act was made concerning 9.699 cents, the OA 195 of 2010 before the Land Tribunal remains pending and requires adjudication. The Land Tribunal’s reliance on the need for a licensed surveyor to demarcate the property is argued to be improper, given that the reference arose at the instance of the plaintiff in the suit and the OA applicant is a party to the suit. He submits that OA need not be adjudicated anew and highlights Narayana Kamath v. Govinda Prabhu (1992(1) KLT 630) to emphasize that a Land Tribunal cannot adjudicate tenancy disputes independently when a civil court has referred the matter; the proper course is to decide the dispute within the civil suit and return records to the court. He further asserts that challenges under Article 227 cannot be adjudicated in this forum without prejudice to the suit’s proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that OA 195/2010 before the Land Tribunal is pending and that the Land Tribunal’s order requires survey expertise for proper demarcation. Respondent No.3 is stated to be the applicant in OA 195/2010. It is submitted that the Land Tribunal’s findings regarding 2.5 cents of property should be accepted and that the reference process and expert analysis are necessary to adjudicate tenancy issues, which should be resolved in OA rather than in collateral proceedings. The respondent’s counsel contends that the challenge to RC No.1/2012 cannot absolve OA from its legal course and that the court should uphold the Land Tribunal’s disposition while ensuring proper legal position is appraised.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Narayana Kamath v. Govinda Prabhu	1992(1) KLT 630	Mentioned Only	Cited for its ratio on the Land Tribunal’s competence; used as guidance rather than a binding ruling in the present case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against T.F. Joseph v. The Land Tribunal, Tripunithura and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN FRIDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943** **OP(C) NO. 1009 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN R.C.NO.1 OF 2012 OF LAND TRIBUNAL,** ## **ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF :** **T.F.JOSEPH AGED 82 YEARS S/O. (LATE) CHEKKAMMA, THATTATHUSSERY HOUSE, SYRIAN CHURCH ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31.** **BY ADVS. M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.V.S.SREEJITH SRI.RINU. S. ASWAN SMT.ALEENA MARIA JOSE SMT.M.ARDRA KRISHNAN SMT.SUSAN JACOB (S-3481) SRI.K.SUNIL** ## **RESPONDENTS/TRIBUNAL & DEFENDANTS 2, 3, 5 ,6 &7:** **1 THE LAND TRIBUNAL, TRIPUNITHURA REPRESNTED BY SPECIAL THASILDAR, MINI CIVIL STATION, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682 301.** **2 MARY, W/O. LATE BABU, AGED 55 YEARS, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, SYRIAN CHURCH ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31.** **3 ROSSY, W/O. LATE K. L. JOSEPH, AGED 76 YEARS, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, SYRIAN CHURCH ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31.** ## O.P.(C)No.1009 of 2020 ..2.. **4 GLANCY, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. LATE BABU, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, SYRIAN CHURCH ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31.** **5 JOSSY, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. LATE LASSAR, PAZHAYAMTHOTTATHIL (H), SHAPPUMPADY JUNCTION, KUMBALANGHI - 682 007.** **6 JOHNY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. LATE LASSAR, PAZHAYAMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P. O., MULAVUKADU, PIN - 682 504.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH SMT.SAIPOOJA BY SRI.DENNY DEVASSY, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## O.P.(C)No.1009 of 2020 ..3.. ## **O.P.(C)No.1009 of 2020** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** In this case, order in R.C.No.1 of 2012 dated 05.02.2020 in O.S.No.878 of 2010 is under challenge at the instance of the plaintiff. 2. Heard Adv.Sri.M.S.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv.Smt.Sai Pooja, the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and others not represented. First respondent appears through Sri.Denny Devassy, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though reference was made under section 125(3) of the Land Reforms Act, in respect of the property comes to an extent of 9.699 cents and the same was answered, O.A.No.195 of 2010 filed by the third respondent has been still pending before the Land Tribunal. He submitted further that the Land Tribunal considered the OA, on the ## O.P.(C)No.1009 of 2020 ..4.. ground that the expertise of a licensed surveyor is required to survey and demarcate the property to adjudicate the OA. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reference was made at the instance of the plaintiff in the suit and in the said suit, the applicant in OA also is a party. Therefore, he is bound by the decision of the Land Tribunal by answering the reference. Therefore, the OA, as such, now pending needs no adjudication. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed a decision of this Court reported in [1992(1) KLT 630], Narayana Kamath v. Govinda Prabhu. In the said decision, it has been held that the Land Tribunal is not competent to enquire into the dispute of tenancy in a separate application filed by the tenant, in a case, the Land Tribunal had received a reference from the civil court. The only course open to the Land Tribunal is to decide the dispute referred to it by the civil court and return the records together with its decision to that court. So long as the decision on the question of tenancy has become final, the Land ## O.P.(C)No.1009 of 2020 ..5.. Tribunal is not competent to permit the tenancy to purchase the rights of the landlord. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that respondent No.3 herein is the applicant in O.A.No.195 of 2010 and the third respondent is satisfied with 2 ½ cents of property now found by the Land Tribunal, while answering R.C.No.1 of 2012. This submission is recorded. 6. It is relevant to note that as far as the challenge against the finding of the Land Tribunal in R.C.No.1 of 2012 is concerned, this Court cannot adjudicate upon in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the said finding shall be considered by the learned Munsiff and appropriate decision in the suit has to be taken in accordance with law. 7. Therefore, I am not inclined to address the challenge in R.C.No.1 of 2012. However, I make it clear that the ratio of the decision cited in Narayana Kamath's case ## O.P.(C)No.1009 of 2020 ..6.. (supra) can be placed before the Land Tribunal, if the Land Tribunal proposed to adjudicate the O.A., despite the fact that the third respondent herein submitted that he is satisfied with 2 ½ cents of property as found in R.C.No.1 of 2012, to defend the case and to appraise the Land Tribunal regarding the legal position. This original petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE** rkj ## O.P.(C)No.1009 of 2020 ..7.. ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1009/2020** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** - **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED PLAINT IN O.S.NO.878 OF 2010 DATED 03.9.2010 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS DATED NIL IN O.S.NO.878 OF 2010.** **EXHIBIT P3** - **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2012 IN O.S.NO.878 OF 2010 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P4** **TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.195 OF 2010 BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL, TRIPUNITHURA DATED 07.12.2010.** **EXHIBIT P5** - **TRUE COPY THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN EXT.P4 ORIGINAL APPLICATION DATED 15.02.2014.** - **EXHIBIT P6** **TRUE COPY THE JUDGMENT DATED 30TH AUGUST 2019 IN O.P.(C) NO.2047/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS IN O.A.195/2010 BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.** **EXHIBIT P8** **TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 31.07.2008 ISSUED FROM THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE BEARING NO.D-4603/08 PURSUANT TO THE PETITION FILED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## O.P.(C)No.1009 of 2020 ..8.. **EXHIBIT P9** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05.02.2020 IN R.C.NO.1/2012.** **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT R2(a): THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 23/12/2005, IN A.S.NO.398/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT.** **EXHIBIT R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY ADV.MITHUN.C.THOMAS IN I.A.NO.8035/2019 IN O.S.NO.878/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.** **EXHIBIT R2(c): TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 19/03/2020 IN I.A.NO.8036/2019 IN O.S.878/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.**