Can a Land Tribunal issue certificates of purchase in respect of the same land to two different persons under the scheme of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' only)? This question has been succinctly answered in Patinhare Purayil Nabeesumma Vs. Miniyatan Zacharias [(2008) 5 SCC 25] as follows:

"A certificate issued under Section 72 K of the Act is conclusive. Once the same is found to be conclusive, the same cannot be refused to be taken into consideration for any purpose whatsoever. The only issue which, therefore, should have been raised by the High Court was as to who was entitled thereto, keeping in view the fact that the land tribunal had granted certificates of assignment to both the parties. In view of the statutory scheme, both the parties could not have been given the certificates of assignment. The certificate in favour of the appellant, even otherwise, having been granted earlier and the same having not been set aside on the ground of fraud or illegality, it was conclusive even as against the land tribunal. The land tribunal, therefore, had no jurisdiction to issue a second certificate." (emphasis supplied).

2. The Land Tribunal, Palakkad by order dated 25.01.1977 in S.M. No. 10388/1976 issued a certificate of purchase in favour of one Ponnuchami in respect of 88 cents of land in Sy. No. 6/5 of Marutharoad village in Palakkad Taluk. The legal heirs of the said Ponnuchami assigned 20 cents of land out of the 88 cents to the first respondent by sale deed (document No. 1948/2000) who had also remitted basic tax pursuant thereto. The very same Land Tribunal by order dated 19.09.1977 in O.A. No. 277/1975 issued another certificate of purchase in favour of one Anthony Muthu in respect of 2.16 acres in the same survey number and village. The revision petitioners are none other than the legal heirs of the said Anthony Muthu who challenge the order of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 103 of the Act.

3. An application put in by the first respondent for possession certificate was returned by the village officer with an endorsement that Ponnuchami did not hold any land in Sy. No. 6/5 as per the village records. The village officer was presumably swayed by the fact that the land for which the possession certificate was sought is covered by a certificate of purchase in favour of Anthony Muthu. Discreet enquiries made by the first respondent revealed that the predecessor-in-interest of the revision petitioners had also obtained a certificate of purchase from the Land Tribunal. The first respondent was admittedly not a party to the proceedings in O.A. No. 277/1975 granting certificate of purchase to Anthony Muthu and was not therefore bound by it in law. However the first respondent preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority against the order in O.A. No. 277/1975 to remove the cloud on title and set right the anomaly in the certificates of purchase. The Appellate Authority had by the order impugned condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the first respondent and set aside the order in O.A. No. 277/1975 and further remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration.

4. Mr. T. Sethumadhavan, Advocate on behalf of the revision petitioners contended that the order of the Appellate Authority is liable to be set at naught for the following among other grounds:

(i) The first respondent had no locus standi to file an appeal to the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms).

(ii) The delay of 26 years in filing the appeal had been lightly condoned by the Appellate Authority.

(iii) There could be two certificates of purchase in respect of the same land to two different persons.

5. It needs no elaboration to hold that any person aggrieved by any order of the Land Tribunal granting certificate of purchase falling within Section 72 F of the Act can maintain an appeal under Section 102 thereof. (see Bhaskaran Vs. Aisabi