There has been a perfunctory disposal of the original application filed for purchase of Kudikidappu in the instant case. O.A. No. 543/1977 (later re-numbered as O.A. No. 103/1985) was originally allowed on 28.09.1977 and 17.01.1980 even though dismissed as abated on 18.11.1985. The order of the Land Tribunal was thereafter the subject matter of A.A. No. 93/1987, C.R.P. No. 2511/1988, A.A. No. 129/1998, C.R.P. No. 572/2005 and A.A. No. 22/2007.
2. The fact remains that the alleged Kudikidappukaran (Shanmughan Pillai) had died on 18.01.1983 itself which was not noticed when A.A. No. 135/1980 was disposed of on 21.01.1985. It is during the proceedings after remand before the Land Tribunal was O.A. No. 103/1985 dismissed as abated on 18.11.1985. No opportunity was afforded to the land owner to bring on record the legal heirs of the alleged Kudikidappukaran and have the case disposed of on merits.
3. True it is that there was a suit for partition in the family of the land owner as O.S. No. 174/1973 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Trivandrum. But the judgment C.R.P. No. 91 of 2009 2 therein has been clarified in A.S. No. 365/1978 on the file of the Court of the District Judge of Trivandrum. The judgments therein only indicate that an extent of three cents of land involved in the suit for partition is embroiled in proceedings before the Land Tribunal. The parties were rest contended with a decree for partition in respect of the remaining extent in view of the proceedings pending as regards the three cents in question. The judgments in O.S. No. 174/1973 or in A.S. No. 365/1978 did not finally pronounce on the entitlement of the alleged Kudikidappukaran for purchase.
4. I do feel that a remand of the case to the Land Tribunal for de-novo consideration would meet the ends of justice. The land owner shall be afforded an opportunity to bring on record the legal heirs of the alleged Kudikidappukaran and the parties shall also be afforded a reasonable opportunity to place their contentions. The report of the authorised officer obtained under Section 105A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 can be made use of by the parties. It is stated that an Advocate Commissioner was also deputed by the Land Tribunal whose report can also be pressed into service. The oral evidence already recorded shall also form part of the record and the parties are at liberty to C.R.P. No. 91 of 2009 3 adduce further oral evidence. The impugned orders are set aside for this limited purpose. Final orders on merit shall be passed by the Land Tribunal after receipt of records within a period of six months.
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS