V. Chitambaresh, J.@mdashDivergent orders passed by the authorities under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (''the Act'' for short) are impugned in these three Civil Revision Petitions. The lands involved in these three cases admittedly belonged in ''jenm'' to Samanthan Kavakkattidathil Chandukutty Valiya Nayanar. One Muthukattil Thommen had executed a registered ''Marupattam'' deed (document No. 1142/1951) in favour of the jenmi in respect of 33.50 acres. It has been explicitly recited in the ''Marupattam'' deed itself that 60 cents of lands in RS. No. 6 and 1/1 of Payyavoor amsom are reserved in favour of Pazhassikavu Bhagavathy Kshetram.
2. The total extent of land covered by the ''Marupattam'' deed is 33.50 acres out of which 60 cents has been reserved to the temple aforestated. It is stated that the balance extent of 32.90 acres have been sold by Muthukattil Thommen and his legal heirs in favour of several persons. The revision petitioner in all the three Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same.
3. The revision petitioner claims title and possession in respect of 22.50 cents under Ext. B1 deed dated 01.04.1964 executed in his favour by the son of Thommen. The revision petitioner also lays claim over 82.75 cents of land under Ext. B2 sale deed dated 03.02.1961 executed by the legal heirs of Thommen. The revision petitioner in addition lays claim over 22.75 cents of land under Ext. B3 sale deed executed by his father. It appears that the father of the revision petitioner by name Kuzhipallil Varkey obtained the same by another ''Marupattam'' deed directly from the jenmi.
4. The land tribunal issued separate certificates of purchase to the revision petitioner in respect of the three items of property. The appellate authority has however found that the description of the boundaries in the certificates of purchase is vague. The appellate authority has in categoric terms observed as follows:
"On scrutiny of the all the above three purchase certificates one cannot identify the lands physically, cannot say that the lands are compact"
The appellate authority has set aside the certificates of purchase and remanded the proceedings to the land tribunal concluding as follows:
"The Land Tribunal is directed to initiate suo motu action and depute an authorised officer (Revenue Inspector) to conduct a detailed enquiry and physical verification to demarcate 60 cents of property of the Kavu to the Kavu and the remaining properties to the persons in possession concerned."
5. I do not find any illegality in the order of the appellate authority remanding the proceedings to the Land Tribunal for de novo consideration. Any party aggrieved can prefer an appeal under Section 102 of the Act as held in
6. It cannot be disputed that 60 cents of land in RS. No. 6 and 1/1 of Payyavoor amsom has been reserved to the temple even in the ''marupattam'' deed. It is only under the said ''marupattaom'' deed does the revision petitioner claim title and possession. Therefore the 60 cents of property has to be carved out first after a proper identification by the Special Deputy Tahsildar. Whether the property claimed by the petitioner by virtue of Exts. B1, B2 and B3 sale deeds fall in the balance extent of 32.90 acres (33.50 - 60) has to be probed. It has of course been claimed that the property covered by Ext. B3 sale deed is not taken in by the ''marupattam'' deed No. 1142/1951. It is stated that the tenant - Muthukattil Thommen - has similarly assigned several tracts of land to others also. Therefore the land tribunal is free to see whether there is any overlapping of lands under the several sale deeds executed by Muthukattil Thommen.
7. The land tribunal shall pass fresh orders granting certificate of purchase to the revision petitioner with clear cut boundaries. It shall be ensured that the property covered by the certificates of purchase does not take in the 60 cents of land reserved to the temple as aforesaid. Whether the lands covered by the certificates of purchase so issued overlaps with the lands covered by the similar sale deeds executed shall also be probed. The other transferees under the sale deeds shall be put on notice at the time of measurement for this purpose. The land tribunal is free to appoint an Advocate Commissioner in addition to the Special Deputy Tahsildar deputed. The Advocate Commissioner is at liberty to seek the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor since the dispute is mainly with regard to the identification of the lease hold premises.
The Land Tribunal is directed to expedite the proceedings and take the same to a logical end within six months. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of.
