The revision petitioner (since deceased) claimed tenancy in respect of 66.5 cents of land in R.S. No. 166/1 of Pattuvam Amsom. The ultimate Jenmi was impleaded as B party No. 1 and the intermediary was impleaded as B party No. 2. The revision petitioner was the A party in O.A. No. 13808/1975 before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal initially allowed the original application on 19.04.1976 which however was challenged in appeals. The order of the Land Tribunal was set aside in A.A. Nos. 176/1979 and 331/1979 by the appellate authority.
2. The appellate authority remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal which again dismissed the original application on 30.11.1985. A belated challenge to the revised order of the Land Tribunal in A.A. No. 280/1987 also failed. But this Court in C.R.P. No. 1109/1989 set aside the order of the appellate authority and directed the appeal to be considered on merits. The appellate authority has thereafter passed the order which is impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.
3. Two contentions are primarily urged by the revision petitioner and they are as follows:-
i) The settled possession of the property by the revision petitioner has been upheld in O.S. No. 215/1978 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Thaliparamba.
ii) The rent receipt dated 04.11.1974 issued by the ultimate Jenmi pertain to periods prior to 01.04.1964 permissible under Section 72Q of the Land Reforms Act, 1963.
4. The B party originally impleaded before the Land Tribunal has not entered appearance here. But two other persons who got themselves impleaded before the Land Tribunal had entered appearance in this Civil Revision Petition. They strongly resist the grant of the certificate of purchase to the revision petitioner on the following grounds:-
i) The documents relied on by the revision petitioner are on the basis of the certificate of purchase dated 17.02.1977 which has since been set aside in A.A. Nos. 176/1979 and 331/1979.
ii) Purchase certificates have already been issued in relation to the same property of others in S.M. Nos. 6518/1975 and S.M. No. 13/1979.
5. It is no doubt true that there cannot be more than one certificate of purchase in relation to one land. It has been so held by the Supreme Court and followed by this Court also. But then whether a certificate of purchase issued to one person is binding on the other who is not a party therein looms large. The further question whether all the three certificates of purchase relate to the same piece of land also needs a deeper probe.
6. I have no option but to set aside both the orders and remand the matter to the Land Tribunal. It is reported that the Land Tribunal, Thaliparamba has been wound up and that only Land Tribunal, Payyannur is functioning. I therefore direct the Land Tribunal, Payyannur to issue notice to all the parties interested. Fresh orders shall be passed after affording to the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The parties also show eagerness to settle the dispute which course can be explored by the Land Tribunal. Every endeavour shall be made by the Land Tribunal to pass final orders within a period of six months.
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
DCS V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE