The revision petitioner is the claimant/tenant in S.M No.326/1997 on the files of the Land Tribunal, Palakkad as well as the appellant in A.A.No.75/1998 on the files of the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur. The revision petitioner claims that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of the properties covered in the proceedings in which the impugned orders have been passed. According to him, prior to 01/04/1964, these properties came to his possession and enjoyment as borne out from the records. The respondent No.1 is the landlord in the said suo moto proceedings. According to the revision petitioner, he is a cultivating tenant in respect of 93 cents in Sy.No.34/4B, 52 cents in old Sy.No.64/1B and 9.75 cents in old Sy.No.64/2B of the Pudupariyaram Village. Thus, he is in possession of total extent of 1.54 acres of property. The above properties C.R.P.No.64 of 2010 2 were originally belonging to one Mr.Venkitachala Iyer and others, who in turn sold out the same to one Tatha, the mother of the respondent No.1 herein, by deed No.1180 of 1953 of the Sub Registry Office, Palakkad. All these while, the said properties were in the possession and enjoyment of the revision petitioner herein. 'J' form was also submitted before the Land Tribunal in respect of the said properties and the Revenue Inspector had submitted certificate stating the averments contained in the 'J' form were correct and it was certified so, after making local inspection. But, due to mistake from the part of the petitioner, the survey numbers for 52 and 9.75 cents were shown as 37/3 instead of actual Sy.No.64/1B and 64/2B. His claim was not allowed with respect to said property. In the meantime, S.M.No.326/1997 was initiated before the Land Tribunal, Palakkad by order dated 01/07/1998. Patta was issued in respect of 93 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.34/4B and regarding the rest of the property comprised in 64/1B and 64/2B, no patta was issued, as it was not involved in earlier O.A No.405/1974 and got rejected. Feeling C.R.P.No.64 of 2010 3 aggrieved, though he had preferred A.A No.75 of 1998 before the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur, the Appellate Authority also confirmed the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The legality and propriety of the concurrent findings by which the petitioner's claim of cultivating tenancy over 52 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.64/1B and 9.75 cents of property comprised in 64/2B is under challenge in this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments in support of the grounds raised in the revision petition. The crux of the argument is that, by a mistake in the earlier 'J' form, survey numbers for 52 cents and 9.75 cents were shown as 37/3 instead of correct Sy.Nos.64/1B and 64/2B respectively.
3. The learned counsel further drew my attention to the possession certificate dated 06/09/1997 issued by the concerned Village Officer showing that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of 52 cents in 64/1B and 9.75 cents in 64/2B. But, the authorities below concurrently failed to consider the possession which was reported by the C.R.P.No.64 of 2010 4 Village Officer. Similarly, though, the authorised officer had reported that the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the property, the same was also not taken into consideration while considering the petitioner's claim.
4. The short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is that, whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the findings by which the petitioner's claim cultivating tenancy over 52 cents in 64/1B and 9.75 cents in 64/2B, is rejected ?
5. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that the appellate authority has observed that the petitioner has not adduced any evidence to substantiate his claim over 52 cents of property in S.No.64/1B and 9.75 cents of property in Sy.No.64/2B of Pudupariyaram village. It is also stated that the respondents have produced documents to show that they are also in possession of property in Sy.No.64/1B and 64/2B. The total extent of property in Sy.No.64/1B is 4.73 acres and that of 64/2B is 1.27 acres. But, the total extent of property in the above survey numbers is not stated in the impugned order. Without ascertaining total extent of C.R.P.No.64 of 2010 5 property in that survey numbers on the basis of the survey records, it cannot be held that the petitioner has no property at all in that survey numbers. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the documents produced by both parties in view of the total extent of the property in that survey numbers.
6. Similarly, it is seen that, though, the Revenue Inspector had filed a report, nothing stated as regards the contends of the report either in the order passed by the Tribunal or in the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Merely, on the reason that, in the earlier 'J' form proceedings, the properties comprised in Sy.No.61/1B and 64/2B are not included, the Tribunal could not have rejected the petitioner's claim in the above said properties, particularly, when they produced possession certificate with respect to that property. The Revenue Inspector's report is a crucial document which would reveal the actual possession of the property; but the same has not found a place in the impugned orders under challenge.
7. Therefore, I find that the Tribunal as well as the C.R.P.No.64 of 2010 6 Appellate Authority failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and I am inclined to set aside the impugned orders under challenge. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after considering all documents produced by both parties, particularly, the Revenue Inspector's report also. The Tribunal is directed to incorporate an appendix at the bottom of the order to be passed, showing the documents produced by both parties. The Tribunal shall pass order afresh within a period of six months from today. The parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence if they want to adduce.
This revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
K.HARILAL, JUDGE.
Stu //True copy// P.A to Judge