Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 674 (KER)

Rajammal v. Hajira

2012-07-16

V.CHITAMBARESH

body2012
JUDGMENT Can a Land Tribunal issue certificates of purchase in respect of the same land to two different persons under the scheme of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' only)? This question has been succinctly answered in Patinhare Purayil Nabeesumma Vs. Miniyatan Zacharias [(2008) 5 SCC 25] as follows: "A certificate issued under Section 72 K of the Act is conclusive. Once the same is found to be conclusive, the same cannot be refused to be taken into consideration for any purpose whatsoever. The only issue which, therefore, should have been raised by the High Court was as to who was entitled thereto, keeping in view the fact that the land tribunal had granted certificates of assignment to both the parties. In view of the statutory scheme, both the parties could not have been given the certificates of assignment. The certificate in favour of the appellant, even otherwise, having been granted earlier and the same having not been set aside on the ground of fraud or illegality, it was conclusive even as against the land tribunal. The land tribunal, therefore, had no jurisdiction to issue a second certificate." (emphasis supplied). 2. The Land Tribunal, Palakkad by order dated 25.01.1977 in S.M. No. 10388/1976 issued a certificate of purchase in favour of one Ponnuchami in respect of 88 cents of land in Sy. No. 6/5 of Marutharoad village in Palakkad Taluk. The legal heirs of the said Ponnuchami assigned 20 cents of land out of the 88 cents to the first respondent by sale deed (document No. 1948/2000) who had also remitted basic tax pursuant thereto. The very same Land Tribunal by order dated 19.09.1977 in O.A. No. 277/1975 issued another certificate of purchase in favour of one Anthony Muthu in respect of 2.16 acres in the same survey number and village. The revision petitioners are none other than the legal heirs of the said Anthony Muthu who challenge the order of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 103 of the Act. 3. An application put in by the first respondent for possession certificate was returned by the village officer with an endorsement that Ponnuchami did not hold any land in Sy. No. 6/5 as per the village records. 3. An application put in by the first respondent for possession certificate was returned by the village officer with an endorsement that Ponnuchami did not hold any land in Sy. No. 6/5 as per the village records. The village officer was presumably swayed by the fact that the land for which the possession certificate was sought is covered by a certificate of purchase in favour of Anthony Muthu. Discreet enquiries made by the first respondent revealed that the predecessor-in-interest of the revision petitioners had also obtained a certificate of purchase from the Land Tribunal. The first respondent was admittedly not a party to the proceedings in O.A. No. 277/1975 granting certificate of purchase to Anthony Muthu and was not therefore bound by it in law. However the first respondent preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority against the order in O.A. No. 277/1975 to remove the cloud on title and set right the anomaly in the certificates of purchase. The Appellate Authority had by the order impugned condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the first respondent and set aside the order in O.A. No. 277/1975 and further remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. 4. Mr. T. Sethumadhavan, Advocate on behalf of the revision petitioners contended that the order of the Appellate Authority is liable to be set at naught for the following among other grounds: (i) The first respondent had no locus standi to file an appeal to the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms). (ii) The delay of 26 years in filing the appeal had been lightly condoned by the Appellate Authority. (iii) There could be two certificates of purchase in respect of the same land to two different persons. 5. It needs no elaboration to hold that any person aggrieved by any order of the Land Tribunal granting certificate of purchase falling within Section 72 F of the Act can maintain an appeal under Section 102 thereof. (see Bhaskaran Vs. Aisabi [1987 (2) KLT 213] and Govinda Pillai Vs. Madhavan Pillai [1988 (2) KLT 522]. The first respondent is an assignee of the land from the legal heirs of the holder of a certificate of purchase and can very well assail the certificate of purchase granted to another when it relates to the same land. (see Bhaskaran Vs. Aisabi [1987 (2) KLT 213] and Govinda Pillai Vs. Madhavan Pillai [1988 (2) KLT 522]. The first respondent is an assignee of the land from the legal heirs of the holder of a certificate of purchase and can very well assail the certificate of purchase granted to another when it relates to the same land. I have no iota of doubt in my mind to hold that the first respondent was a person aggrieved by the order of the Land Tribunal in O.A. No. 277/1975 and well competent to maintain an appeal under the Act. 6. Much arguments were addressed on the alleged belated filing of appeal by the first respondent since about 26 years had elapsed since the order in O.A. No. 277/1975 was passed by the Land Tribunal. The extent of the delay is immaterial when the order in O.A. No. 277/1975 had been passed by the Land Tribunal behind the back of the first respondent. The revision petitioners had not been successful in imputing knowledge to the revision petitioners about the order in O.A. No. 277/1975 at any point of time earlier to hold them guilty of laches. It was contended that the certificate of purchase in O.A. No. 277/1975 had been produced as an exhibit in a suit (O.S. No. 306/2005) filed by the erstwhile landlord (jenmi) against the revision petitioners. But the suit was for injunction simplicitor filed long after the land was taken assignment of by the first respondent by sale deed No. 1948/2000 when the jenmi had lost interest in the holding and the first respondent was not made a party therein. The appeal to the Appellate Authority had been preferred soon after the application put in by the first respondent for possession certificate was returned by the village officer. Only a formal application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was warranted and the time lag between its preferment and the order impugned is inconsequential. 7. There already existed a certificate of purchase in S.M. No. 10388/1976 in respect of 88 cents of land and there was no consequent reduction in extent while granting certificate of purchase in O.A. No. 277/1975. Apparently the land situated in Sy. No. 6/5 of Marutharoad village covered by the two certificates of purchase overlap which is impermissible as per the dictum in Nabeesumma's case. Apparently the land situated in Sy. No. 6/5 of Marutharoad village covered by the two certificates of purchase overlap which is impermissible as per the dictum in Nabeesumma's case. The certificate of purchase in S.M. No. 10388/1976 not having been set aside on the ground of fraud or illegality was conclusive even as against the Land Tribunal which had therefore no jurisdiction to issue a second certificate of purchase in O.A. No. 277/1975 covering the same land. Which of the two certificates of purchase would prevail is a matter for deeper probe by the Land Tribunal which had precisely been directed by the Appellate Authority in the order impugned. The Appellate Authority had only set aside the subsequent order granting certificate of purchase in respect of the same land for a denovo consideration after notice to the interested parties. 8. The Land Tribunal has to consider as to what exactly is the total extent available in Sy. No. 6/5 of Marutharoad village and whether the two certificates of purchase relate to the same land. Which of the two certificates of purchase would prevail in case the land covered by the two certificates of purchase overlap is also another moot question to be adjudicated by the Land Tribunal. The enquiry has of course to be confined to the overlaping of the property in the two certificates of purchase and need not pervade to the remaining property in O.A. No. 277/1975. The Appellate Authority had neither decided erroneously nor failed to decide any question of law in remanding the matter as to warrant interference under Section 103 of the Act. The Civil Revision Petition is rejected in limine.