M.V. Mayan vs N.N. Ramanathan and Others

K.S. Paripoornan, J.—The appellant in A.A. No. 2783 of 1978 in the court of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Trichur, assails the order of the said authority, dated 13-11-1984, in this revision. S.M. Proceedings No. 1076 of 1978 were initiated against the appellant u/s 72-C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (in short, the Act) for the assignment of- the rights of the land owner and Intermediaries over 50 cents of DCW land in R.S. No. 20-3/7 of Thekkethara in Melarcode Village. Notices were served on all interested parties. The appellant (tenant) filed water tax receipt, dated 15-3-1977 (Ext. P1) to prove his possessory right over the land. That related to the year 1977. The appellant was bound to prove his tenancy prior to 1-4-1964. He claimed that the land referred to, came to his possession in 1963. He did not produce any records therefore Till 1977 the water tax and other receipts were in the name of N.M. Krishnamoorthi, the land owner. In the above state of affairs, the Land Tribunal held that the appellant is only an agricultural labourer under Shri Krishnamoorthi. He was not the actual cultivating tenant and that he has not proved his right over the land before 1-4-1964. The Land Tribunal held that the appellant is not entitled to get the land assigned. In the appeal, the above decision was affirmed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms). The Appellate Authority held that Ext. P1, water tax receipt issued by the Melarcode Village Officer, is of no use. It related to 1976-77. The revision petitioner failed to prove that he is a cultivating tenant on the crucial date, 1-4-1964. The Appellate Authority also held on perusal of the relevant Village records, that Column No. 12 regarding proof, as a cultivating tenant, was left blank. The said records is available at page 5 of the records. In these state of affairs, there was no material to hold that on the crucial date, 1-4-1964, the revision petitioner was a cultivating tenant and so he is entitled to assignment. Aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority, dated 13-11-1934, the cultivating tenant has come up in revision.

I heard counsel. Mr. Sugunapalan, counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that suo motu S.M. proceedings No. 1076 of 1978 was taken and it was improper and unjust to insist on more proof and Ext. P1 water tax receipt should have been accepted as sufficient proof in support of the claim for assignment. Counsel went to the extent of submitting that in Suo motu proceedings assignment cannot be declined for want of proof. I am unable to accept the above pleas. u/s 72-C of the Act, even in a case where the cultivating tenant has not made an application, it is open to the Land Tribunal to assign the right, title and interest of the land owner and intermediaries to the cultivating tenant. It can be so done only if the cultivating tenant is entitled thereto. Counsel made a reference to Rules 138 to 141 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules and also rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules 1970, to contend that in suo motu proceedings the authority cannot decline to assign the land to the cultivating tenant. Rules 138 to 141 of the Kerala Laud Reforms (Tenancy) Rules provide for particulars to be furnished, manner of obtaining information, verification of the information and the procedure to be followed by the authorised officer. Detailed enquiry is contemplated. Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules 1970 permits the Land Tribunal to initiate suo motu proceedings and assign the right, title and interest, which have vested in the Government u/s 72 of the Act. But such assignment can be only to cultivating tenants "entitled thereto". Section 72-C of the Act, read along with rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules 1970 and also rules 138 to 141 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules make it abundantly clear that only in cases where the tenant is entitled to the assignment, the authority can pass appropriate orders. In this case, though suo motu proceedings were initiated, in the enquiry it was found that the revision petitioner was not a cultivating tenant. On the crucial date (1-1-1964) the revision petitioner should have been a cultivating tenant. The burden of proof is on him. He did not discharge the said burden. Ext. P1, water tax receipt, was irrelevant to prove possession. In the absence of any material, oral or documentary, to substantiate the plea that the revision petitioner was a cultivating tenant on the crucial date, the authorities below were justified in dropping the S.M. proceedings and declining to assign the land to the revision petitioner. The order passed by the Appellate Authority, dated 13-11-1984 does not suffer from any error of law or error of jurisdiction. The Appellate Authority has not failed to decide any question of law.

In these circumstances, there is no merit in this revision. It is dismissed.