The revision petitioner is the appellant in A.A. No.55/2000 on the files of the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur. The above appeal was filed challenging the order dated 21-3- 2000 passed by the Land Tribunal in SM No.81/88. The petitioner was the A-party in the said proceedings and he sought for assignment of right, title and interest in respect of the property measuring 1.50 Acres of land in Re-sy. No.260/1A1A1 of Cheemeni Village in his favour as cultivating tenant of the said property. Earlier the Land Tribunal passed an order dated 27-10-1988 dropping the proceedings in the absence of both parties. Thereafter, in appeal, the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration and after considering both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner, the Land Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner on a finding that none of the documents produced by the petitioner would prove the right of tenancy. The said order was challenged in the above appeal by the petitioner on the ground that the Land Tribunal went wrong in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence adduced by him. But the Appellate Authority without considering the evidence on record dismissed the appeal. The legality and propriety of the findings by which the Appellate Authority rejected the claim of the petitioner are under challenge in this Revision Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority miserably failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Appellate Authority has not looked into any of the several documents produced in evidence. Thus the Appellate Authority has not re-appreciated the evidence on record. The Land Tribunal fully relied on the report filed by the Revenue Inspector, which was prepared even without issuing notice of inspection to the petitioner. Due to the absence of the petitioner, the Revenue Inspector could not identify the petitioner's property. The sum and substance of the arguments is that the report of the Authorised Officer on which the Land Tribunal placed reliance is not acceptable. But, the Appellate Authority has not examined the report so as to find out whether the report was prepared after identifying the property correctly.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents advanced arguments justifying the impugned order under challenge. The learned counsel drew my attention to the order passed by the Land Tribunal and submits that the Land Tribunal had meticulously examined all the documents produced in evidence.
4. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that the impugned order was passed in a perfunctory manner, without application of mind. None of the documents have been adverted to before passing the order. The Appellate Authority simply reposed its confidence on the Land Tribunal and abdicated the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 102 of the Land Reforms Act. Going by Section 102(3) it is seen that in deciding appeals under Section 102(1), the Appellate Authority shall exercise all the powers which a court has or the same procedure which the court follows in deciding the appeals against the decree of an original court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Cursory manner of disposal is to be deprecated. This Court at time and again cautioned the Appellate Authority that appeals shall not be disposed of without reasoning on the re-appreciation of evidence. In Mohammed Shafi Vs. Mohammed Haji (1986 KHC 466), this Court held as follows:-
“7. I am not at all satisfied with the style and method of the disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority. The appellate authority, constituted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, should always remember that it has got a very serious responsibility in the matter of disposing of the appeals that come up before it under S.102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. They have got the power and obligation to re-value the evidence and all the circumstances involved in the case and to examine the correctness of the order of the Tribunal. These authorities - the quasi judicial Tribunals and the appellate authorities constituted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, have got a vital and significant role in the present day administration of justice. They are entrusted with vast and important adjudicatory powers in regard to property rights, which the citizens hold as very dear and precious. The appellate authority as well as the Tribunal are bound to formulate the points in dispute and thereafter to consider the circumstances and evidence bearing on those points. They have to discuss the rival contentions. Appellate authority should give its own reasons for accepting or rejecting the findings of the Tribunal. If the Tribunal has not entered findings on relevant issues, the appellate authority has necessarily to record its own findings on vital issues in the case on a proper assessment of the evidence and relevant contentions. I need not say that the appellate authority's function never slops with a review or an overseeing of the Tribunal's order. It is the final fact finding forum. It has to re-appreciate and re-value the circumstances and evidence in the case, since it is exercising an appellate power. Both the land tribunal and appellate authority are bound to give a reasoned decision. Reasoned decisions are not only important for the purpose of showing the citizen that he is receiving justice; they are also a valuable discipline for quasi judicial tribunals themselves. If the appellate authority declines to give a reasoned decision it amounts to a denial of justice and is itself a serious error of law.”
5. In view of the above decision, per se, I am not satisfied with the manner in which the Appellate Authority disposed the above appeal. In the above circumstance, the order passed by the Tribunal deserves re-appreciation after examining both oral and documentary evidence meticulously.
6. Consequently, the impugned order under challenge is liable to be set aside and I do so. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur, for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of being heard to both parties, within a period of six months from today. The Registry is directed to return the back files forthwith.
Sd/-
(K.HARILAL, JUDGE)
okb.