Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 711 (KER)

U. MOHAMMEDKUTTY v. THE STATE OF KERALA

2025-03-24

K.BABU

body2025
ORDER : K.BABU, J. In this Revision Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Land Tribunal, Tirur, in S.M.No.393/2011 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority in AA No.57/2014. The petitioner is a stranger to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. The petitioner filed a petition seeking impleadment in the Suo Motu proceedings before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The relevant facts:- 2. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed an application under Section 72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, before the Land Tribunal seeking assignment of 0.1862 Hectors of wet land in Re-survey No.95/3 of Ozhur Village in Tirur Taluk, claiming that they are the tenants of the property, impleading Mambatta Sreekumaran Namboodiri, Mambatta Mana, the landlord of the property. In the proceedings, respondent Nos. 3 to 6/claimants contended that the property belonged in Jenmam to Mambatta Mana and about 160 years ago, the Janmi entrusted the property to their maternal grandfather on oral lease. After the death of the grandfather, petitioner’s father got the property on oral lease from the Janmi. He had been in possession of the property. He paid the land tax till his death. After the death of petitioners’ father, they inherited the property and they are in possession of the same. They claimed Janmam right over the property. 3. In the proceedings, the revision petitioner Shri.Muhammedkutty filed an application to implead him as a party contending that the property contained in Re- survey No.95/3 of Ozhur Village was a wakf property. According to him, the property was shown as a wakf property in a partition deed registered in the Sub Registrar’s Office, Tanur in 1895. He pleaded that the property was shown as item No.4 in the partition deed. 4. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 resisted the application contending that the property comprised in Re-survey No.95/3 is not wakf property. The respondents pleaded that item No.4 in the partition deed No.2900/1895 is ‘Arukandam Nilam’ and the property comprised in Re- survey No.95/3 is ‘Ettukandam Nilam’ and therefore, the property shown in the partition deed and the property in the possession of the respondents are different. 5. The Tribunal dismissed the impleading application and allowed the claim of respondent Nos.3 to 5 holding that they are entitled to fixity of tenure. 6. 5. The Tribunal dismissed the impleading application and allowed the claim of respondent Nos.3 to 5 holding that they are entitled to fixity of tenure. 6. The petitioner challenged the order of the Land Tribunal before the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur,by filing AA No.57/2014. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 and the learned Government Pleader. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the boundaries of the property described in the partition deed No.2900/1895 tally with the boundaries of property assigned to respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and therefore, even though there may be difference in the name of the property and survey No., the boundaries prevail over them. The learned counsel relied on Ibrahim Koyakutty v. Varghese Varghese [1951 KHC 134] in support of his contentions. Relying on Moideenkunhi v. Executive Officer [ 1999 (1) KLT 204 : 1999 KHC 79], the learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal ought to have impleaded the petitioner as a party and granted an opportunity to contest the case. 9. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Tribunal, while dismissing the application seeking impleadment, had considered the entire materials relied on by the petitioner and found that he had no right whatsoever over the property sought to be assigned in favour of the party respondents. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that apart from the name of the property, the survey No. of the property also differs. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the adankal extract produced by the petitioner shows that the patta of the property stood in the name of Mambatta Mana. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the claim of the petitioner that the property belonged in Jenmam to Urothiyil Tharavadu is without foundation and therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the application seeking impleadment. 9. The learned Government Pleader also supported the contentions of the party respondents. 10. The property involved is 0.1862 Hector of land in Re-survey No.95/3 of Ozhur Village. The claim of the petitioner is that the property belonged in Jenmam to Urothiyil Tharavadu. The petitioner relied on a partition deed No.2900/1895 of SRO, Tanur, extract of Adankal etc.in support of his contentions. 11. In the partition deed No.2900/1895, item No.4 property claimed by the petitioner is described as ‘Arunkandam Nilam’. The claim of the petitioner is that the property belonged in Jenmam to Urothiyil Tharavadu. The petitioner relied on a partition deed No.2900/1895 of SRO, Tanur, extract of Adankal etc.in support of his contentions. 11. In the partition deed No.2900/1895, item No.4 property claimed by the petitioner is described as ‘Arunkandam Nilam’. The property assigned to the party respondents is ‘Ettukandam Nilam’. On 10.04.2012, the Village Officer, Ozhur, submitted a report before the Tribunal. The Village Officer reported that Arukandam Nilam of Ozhur Village is in Re-survey No.49/4, 49/5, 49/6 (Old Survey Nos.1-4,6-6,4-7,5). The Adankal extract shows that the property in Re-survey No.95/3 (Ettukandam Nilam) belonged to Mambatta Narayanan Namboothiri. The Village Officer reported that the party respondents/claimants and their predecessors have been paying basic tax for the property. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner had no right over the property for the following reasons:- (a) the name of the property in the suo motu proceedings is ‘Ettukandam Nilam’ whereas the name of the property over which the petitioner raised claim is ‘Arukandam Nilam.’ (b) The survey No. of the property claimed by the party respondents is 95/3 whereas the survey Nos. of the property claimed by the petitioner are Sy.Nos. 49/4, 49/5 and 49/6. (c)The Adankal extract shows that the patta of the property stands in the name of Mambatta Mana and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the property belonged in Jenmam to Urothiyil Tharavadu is baseless. (d) There is nothing to show that the property is wakf property and the petitioner is the Muttavalli of the same. 12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the procedure adopted by the Land Tribunal in dismissing the application seeking impleadment along with the suo motu proceedings is illegal. 13. While dismissing the application seeking impleadment, the Land Tribunal had considered the merit of the contentions raised by the revision petitioner. I am of the view that the procedure adopted by the Land Tribunal has not caused any prejudice to the revision petitioner. The Appellate Authority, after re-appreciating the evidence in the matter, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove that the disputed property is a wakf property owned by the Masjid. The precedents relied on by the petitioner has no relevance to the facts of the case. 14. The Appellate Authority, after re-appreciating the evidence in the matter, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove that the disputed property is a wakf property owned by the Masjid. The precedents relied on by the petitioner has no relevance to the facts of the case. 14. The High Court is exercising its revisional powers under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence led before the fact finding authority. This Court can interfere only when it is shown that the appreciation of evidence by the fact finding authority is perverse and which does not eminate from the evidence on record treating the same as a question of law. 15. In the present case, the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority considered the pleadings and documents and came to a right conclusion. Both the authorities below considered the entire materials placed by the petitioner. The findings were recorded by the authorities on a proper appreciation of the evidence bearing in mind the norms to be applied in appreciating the evidence to record a finding of fact. There is no miscarriage and failure of justice warranting revaluation or re-appreciation of evidence. 16. In the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction can interfere with the findings of the fact finding authority only when it is found that they exercised jurisdiction not vested them in law and failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Therefore, the civil revision petition lacks merits and its stands dismissed.