High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
C.MOHAMMED NAJIB, S/O.T.V.MOHAMMEDKOYA v. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE - WP(C) No. 36464 of 2004(N)  RD-KL 11975 (4 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 36464 of 2004(N)
1. C.MOHAMMED NAJIB, S/O.T.V.MOHAMMEDKOYA,
2. KAYANIYIL SUBAIDA, D/O.KUNHALI,
3. PARAKKOD SAFIYA, D/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.
2. KOZHIPPURATH KUTTYMALU AMMA,
3. K.M.MAHAMOOD, S/O.AHMMEDKUTTY HAJI,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.W.P.(C) NO. 36464 of 2004
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2007
Sri.V.V.Surendran, the learned counsel for the petitioners addressed very strenuous and fervent submissions before me against Ext.P5 order of the Land Tribunal by which Ext.P1 initial report of the authorized officer on the basis of which suo motu case was registered has been set aside. He submitted that in view of Ext.P5, the initial report Ext.P1 is going to be ignored by the Tribunal. According to him, since the suo motu itself was registered on the basis of Ext.P1, very proceedings will have to be closed.
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri.D.Krishna Prasad the learned counsel for the contesting respondent and those of Sri.Thomas John Ambookan the leanred Government Pleader also. Both of them submitted that it is not correct to say that Ext.P1 is the first report. According to Sri.Krishna Prasad Ext.P1 is liable to be set aside since Ext.P1 was prepared behind the back of the 3rd respondent who is a necessary party. According WPC No.36464/2004 2 to him, Ext.P1, at any rate, was not the earliest report. The earliest report, he contends, is Ext.R3(a). The learned Government Pleader submits that it is open to the petitioner to file his objection to Ext.P6 report also in which case, the Tribunal will consider those objections also.
3. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar, I am of the view that the Tribunal is to take decision on the basis of all relevant materials which comes on record during the enquiry. The argument of the counsel for the petitioners that because of Ext.P1 has been set aside, the proceedings itself will come to close is too technical for receiving acceptance. I repell the challenge against Ex.P5. If the petitioners are able to convince the Tribunal that Ext.P1 continues to be relevant in spite of Ext.P6, the Tribunal will consider Ext.P1 also along with Ext.P6 and other relevant materials. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE.dpk WPC No.36464/2004 3
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.