JUDGMENT : 1. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “(i) Call for the records relating to Ext.P1 to P-5. (ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order to quash Ext.P-5 order dated 4.7.2018 in A.A.No.32/2014 passed by the court of Appellate Authority (LR) Thrissur. (iii) Pass appropriate writ or orders declaring that Ext.P-1 order dated 1.8.2013 passed in S.M. 678/2013 by the land Tribunal Thrissur and Ext.P-2 Purchase Certificate No.1028/2013 dated 1.10.2013 issued are legal, valid and sustainable in law and facts and not liable to be set aside. (iv) Stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Ext.P-5 order. (v) Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just and allow the writ petition (Civil) with costs.” 2. Heard Sri.T.M.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. V.C. Madhavankutty, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.1 and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for 3 to 5. 3. According to the petitioner, he had obtained 19.2 Ares of property in Sy.No. 303/2 of Ollukkara Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur Revenue District, on the basis of partition deed and 12 cents in Sy.No. 291/1 and 3 cents in Sy.No. 303/2, both in the same village, on the basis of a registered sale deed executed by his brother. The subject property involved in this case is one having 12 cents in Sy.No. 291/1. Since the said property in Sy.No. 291/1 was on pattom tenure, the petitioner had applied for purchase certificate, which led to institution of suo motu proceedings S.M.No.678/2013 on the file of the 4th respondent Land Tribunal and the Land Tribunal had allowed the said plea as per Ext.P-1 order dated 1.8.2013 in S.M.No. 678/2013 and had consequentially issued Ext.P2 purchase certificate dated 1.10.2013 with respect to the subject property under Sec. 72K after following the due procedure in the Kerala Land Reforms Act. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal had duly caused publication of notice inviting objections as mandated in Sec. 72K(f) as required in Sec. 72F(1) and the rules framed there under and the 1st respondent had not responded to the said notice and had not submitted any objections whatsoever to the plea of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal had duly caused publication of notice inviting objections as mandated in Sec. 72K(f) as required in Sec. 72F(1) and the rules framed there under and the 1st respondent had not responded to the said notice and had not submitted any objections whatsoever to the plea of the petitioner. So also, it is stated that respondent No.2, who is jenmi/landlord, had not turned up before the Tribunal despite service of notice and hence he was set ex parte both by the Tribunal as well as subsequently by the appellate authority. That, much after the issuance of Exts.P1 and P-2 proceedings the 1st respondent had submitted appeal with a petition to condone delay in filing the said appeal on 7.8.2014 before the 3rd respondent Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) under Sec. 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The appellate authority had condoned the delay and has now allowed the appeal filed by the 1st respondent as per the impugned Ext.P-5 order dated 4.7.2018 whereby the impugned Exts.P1 and P-2 proceedings have been set aside and the matter has been remitted to the Land Tribunal for consideration of the matter afresh, after hearing the parties concerned including the 1st respondent. The main plea put up by the 1st respondent before the appellate authority was that he had filed Ext.P-4 original suit as O.S.No.1300 of 2013 on 25.3.2013 before the Munsiff's court, Thrissur, wherein the petitioner herein has been arrayed as defendant and the relief sought for in the suit is for injunction to restrain the defendant therein (petitioner) from obstructing the plaintiff (R-1 herein) from using the pathway in the subject property. That the subject property involved in this suit over which the 1st respondent had claimed easement, is the subject property involved in Exts.P1 and P-2. That it was only after the receipt of summons of Ext.P-4 suit by the petitioner herein, that he had filed the application for grant of purchase certificate before the Tribunal, etc. That the subject property involved in this suit over which the 1st respondent had claimed easement, is the subject property involved in Exts.P1 and P-2. That it was only after the receipt of summons of Ext.P-4 suit by the petitioner herein, that he had filed the application for grant of purchase certificate before the Tribunal, etc. The main objection raised by the petitioner herein before the appellate authority was that person like the 1st respondent herein cannot seek to disturb the purchase certificate already issued to the petitioner on the ground that he has filed a suit claiming easement right and that even if the claim for easement right is granted by the trial court concerned, that by itself will not make any material difference in the outcome as to whether the petitioner herein is eligible and entitled for the grant of purchase certificate in respect of the subject property. However, the appellate authority held has that since the petitioner had already received summons in the said suit before he had filed the application for grant of purchase certificate, it is only fair that the 1st respondent is again given a chance by the Land Tribunal to consider his objections in the matter of grant of purchase certificate to the petitioner herein. The last paragraph of the impugned Ext.P-5 appellate order dated 4.7.2018 reads as follows: “I have perused all the documents available before me and heard the valid arguments of both counsels. I think the prime issue to be discussed is whether the appellant is an interested party and whether he has obtained sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence before the Lower Court. The appellant has pointed out that he has filed a suit as O.S. 1300/2013 before the Hon'ble Munsiff Court, Thrissur against the 1st respondent herein from restraining and causing any obstruction in the way which is the subject matter of the appeal. The petition was filed by the 1st respondent for getting Purchase Certificate before the Land Tribunal only after receiving summons from the Munsiff Court and after filing counter in the injunction application. The 1st respondent has not denied this contention. His only argument in this regard is that the appellant has absolutely no manner of right over the above property. I think the appellant has never obtained an opportunity to prove his claim by adducing evidences. The 1st respondent has not denied this contention. His only argument in this regard is that the appellant has absolutely no manner of right over the above property. I think the appellant has never obtained an opportunity to prove his claim by adducing evidences. On going through the documents and after hearing both counsels, this authority found that it is against the natural justice if the prayer of the appellant is denied. In the result I hereby allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Land Tribunal to consider it afresh after giving the parties sufficient opportunities to adduce evidences.” 4. The learned Senior Govt. Pleader was requested to get instructions in the matter as to whether the due process of inviting objections by publication of notice in terms of provisions contained in Sec.72F and the rules framed there under, etc. had been duly complied with before Exts.P-1 and P-2 proceedings were finalised by the Land Tribunal, Thrissur. Today when the matter was taken up consideration, the learned Senior Govt. Pleader would submit on the basis of the instructions that the Land Tribunal had fulfilled all the necessary procedural requirements including the publication of notice inviting objections from interested persons, as understood in Sec.72F(1) of the Act and that the 1st had not responded to the said notice and had not submitted any objections before the Tribunal in the matter of grant of purchase certificate as sought for by the petitioner herein. 5. A perusal of Ext.P-4 suit would disclose that the main payer made by the 1st respondent therein is that injunction should be granted by the trial court so as to restrain the petitioner herein/defendant therein from obstructing the use of pathway in the subject property concerned. The pleadings in Ext.P-4 suit would disclose that the said plea set up by the plaintiff therein (R-1 herein) is on the basis of an alleged easement right over the subject property. Irrespective as to whether the prayer in the said suit is granted or even if it is assumed that the prayer in Ext.P-4 suit is granted in favour of the 1st respondent herein, that by itself will not make any material difference on the issue as to whether the petitioner herein is eligible and entitled for the grant of purchase certificate as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. In case the plaintiff in Ext.P-4 suit is successfully able to establish such a claim over the person who owns and possesses the subject property, then the said person is obliged to comply with the said decree that may be rendered by the civil court concerned. Whether such defendant in such suit is a cultivating tenant or whether he is otherwise entitled ownership and possession of the property, etc. will not make any material difference in the issue as to whether or not he is obliged to comply with the said decree if it is so successfully obtained by the plaintiff. If the 1st respondent had duly responded to the notice issued by the Land Tribunal inviting objections before the consideration of the application for purchase certificate, then certainly his objections should have been then considered and it is to be borne in mind that even now Ext.P-4 suit has not been decreed and is still pending consideration before the trial court concerned. Even if the 1st respondent had secured a decree in Ext.P-4 at that point of time, his locus standi to make a challenge on merits as to whether or not the petitioner herein is otherwise eligible and entitled to get purchase certificate, is not in any manner affected either by the success or failure of the 1st respondent herein in Ext.P-4 suit. Therefore, any such objection that could have been filed by the 1st respondent at that point of time, could have been only noted by the Land Tribunal and his objections should have been only disposed of in that manner and he would not have the locus to maintain any challenge on merits regarding the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner for grant of purchase certificate. Having not chosen to respond to the notice at that point of time, then parties like the 1st respondent whose claims are only on the basis of Ext.P-4 pending suit, should not have been permitted by the appellate authority to intervene in the matter so as to disturb the already concluded and finalised proceedings for grant of purchase certificate. It has to be borne in mind that even the landlord (R-2 herein) had not bothered to respond to the notice issued by the Land Tribunal and even by the appellate authority and he was set ex parte both by the Land Tribunal and by the appellate authority. It has to be borne in mind that even the landlord (R-2 herein) had not bothered to respond to the notice issued by the Land Tribunal and even by the appellate authority and he was set ex parte both by the Land Tribunal and by the appellate authority. In such a case, the approach of the appellate authority as per the impugned Ext.P-5 order to permit a party like the 1st respondent, who is only a plaintiff in a pending suit for injunction, is highly illegal, unreasonable and improper. The 1st respondent has no case that the due process of inviting objections by issuance of notice, etc. has not been followed by the Land Tribunal. The 1st respondent has also not given any explanation as to why he did not respond to the said notice published by the Tribunal. In the light of the said conduct of the 1st respondent and in view of the of the claim made by the 1st respondent, the appellate authority should not have disturbed Exts.P1 and P-2 proceedings so as to set aside the same and remit the matter again for consideration by the Land Tribunal afresh. Even if the Land Tribunal is to hear the 1st respondent, no material difference could be there in the outcome as afore stated. 6. Faced with this situation, Sri. V.C. Madhavankutty, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would then submit that the 1st respondent has yet another objection that it is not the petitioner who is eligible and entitled for getting purchase certificate and that a third party, who was the cultivating tenant was otherwise eligible and entitled for getting purchase certificate. That is a contention that cannot be advanced by the 1st respondent and could have been advanced only by such a party. Going by the pleadings and materials on record, it is seen that no rival claimant has raised an objection that he is having a better right than the petitioner herein as the cultivating tenant to get the purchase certificate. It is also to be noted that the issuance of purchase certificate in the nature of Ext.P-2 is statutorily conferred a sacrosanct status in respect of the conclusiveness of the evidence regarding Sec.72K(2). It is also to be noted that the issuance of purchase certificate in the nature of Ext.P-2 is statutorily conferred a sacrosanct status in respect of the conclusiveness of the evidence regarding Sec.72K(2). It is also to be noted that the legislature by the enactment of sub section (2) of Sec. 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, has mandated that the certificate of purchase issued under Sec. 72K(1) shall be conclusive proof of the assignment to the tenant of the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, over the holding or portion thereof to which the assignment relates. When such a sacrosanct state of affairs is conferred by the legislature on the purchase certificate so granted, then the appellate authority should not have disturbed it in a very light manner as has been done in the instant case. The impugned Ext.P-5 appellate order rendered by the appellate authority is not only highly illegal and improper but also has inflicted grave miscarriage of justice as far as the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, the impugned Ext.P-5 appellate order dated 4.7.2018 rendered by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur, will stand set aside and Ext.P-1 order dated 1.8.2013 in S.M.No. 678/2013 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Thrissur, and P-2 purchase certificate dated 1.10.2013 issued in favour of the petitioner, will stand restored. However, it is made clear and declared that none of the observations made by this Court in this judgment will in any manner even remotely affect the adjudication of Ext.P-4 suit, which will be rendered independently by the trial court concerned untramelled and uninfluenced in any manner by this judgment. This Court has rendered the above said orders and findings in this case only for the limited purpose as to whether the impugned Ext.P-5 appellate order is vitiated by illegality, impropriety, unreasonableness, etc. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.