Aggrieved by order dated 12.6.2014 in A.A. 27 of 2009, the respondent before the appellate authority has come up in revision.
2. The facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows:
The petitioner before this Court claimed tenancy rights and initiated suo motu proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam in respect of 2.13 ¾ acres of land. He succeeded before the Land Tribunal.
3. Vasumathi, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 5 herein had filed an application as O.A. 38 of 1990 before the Land Tribunal, Kuzhalmannam in respect of the same property for the assignment of right, title and interest of the landlord. It is conceded that that was initially dismissed for default and an appeal was preferred by Vasumathi which was allowed.
4. When the petitioner herein sought to get himself impleaded in O.A. 38 of 1990, Vasumathi, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents before this Court came to know that purchase certificate had already been issued to the petitioner herein. Vasumathi therefore preferred A.A. 27 of 2009 before the appellate authority with a petition for condoning the delay of 500 and odd days in filing the appeal. The delay was condoned and the appeal was taken on file. The order condoning the delay was challenged by the petitioner in O.P.(C) 1300 of 2014. Meanwhile, Vasumathi died and her legal heirs were brought on the party array. There was abatement and delay in bringing them on record also. When that was allowed, that was challenged by the petitioner before this Court.
5. While things stood so, it so happened that the appellate authority allowed A.A. 27 of 2009 and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam before which O.A. 38 of 1990 was pending so as to have a joint trial of both the proceedings since the case is one of rival tenancy.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contends that there is no reasoning by the appellate authority for allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam.
7. This Court is given to understand that O.A. 38 of 1990 was initially filed before the Land Tribunal Kuzhalmannam. When the appeal was allowed, the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam. It therefore follows that as of now both the proceedings, i.e., the proceedings initiated by the respondents herein and the petitioner before this court are before the same authority.
8. It is not in dispute that in the suo motu proceedings in which the petitioner became successful in getting an order in his favour, the respondents are not parties. It is also significant to notice that both of them claimed tenancy under the same landlord though the extent of property varies. The petitioners before this Court claims tenancy right over 2.13 ¾ acres while the predecessor-in-interest of respondents claimed right over 3.36 acres.
9. True, the appellate authority has not given any reason as to why the appeal was being remanded. There are two proceedings pending before the authority concerned and there has not been an evaluation of the rival claims by any of the authorities concerned. It is here that the fact that in the proceedings which culminated in favour of the petitioner, the respondents were not made parties assumes significance. Though, O.A. 38 of 1990 is proceeding at a snail's pace, the fact remains that the respondents herein approached this Court to have an expeditious disposal of the appeal. Whatever that be, since there is rival claim of tenancy, if the appellate authority thought it proper to allow the appeal and remand the matter to the same Tribunal where O.A. 38 of 1990 is pending, more so since the respondents were not parties to the suo motu proceedings, it could not be found fault with. Probably that was the proper way to deal with the issue.
10. It needs to be noticed that no particular prejudice is caused to the petitioner by having the matter decided by the same authority. As already stated, both the parties claim under the same landlord and there is overlapping of the property. It is therefore necessary to resolve the rival claims. It is only proper that both the proceedings are tried by the same Land Tribunal especially when in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner, the respondents before this Court were not made parties.
11. Though the appellate order may not be heavily worded, the conclusion seems to be just and proper and there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order of the appellate authority and there is no reason to interfere with the same under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
12. However, the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam is directed to take both the applications and dispose of them as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.