The operational perimeter and jurisdictional confines, which bind the Taluk Land Boards, while exercising the powers prescribed to it under the provisions of Rule 136A of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 presents, in the maze of all the facts involved, to be the one issue, which is the pivot on which any resolution of the disputes in this case would obtain consummation.

2. Before dealing with the issues of law placed by the learned counsel on either side, it would, of course, be necessary to have a quick glance of the facts, a wood cut of which is being shown as under:

Petitioners on the one side and the third respondent on the other are staking claim of ownership over certain extent of land comprised in survey No. 726/3 of Cheranellur Village. The petitioners assert their ownership of the said property on the strength of Ext.P10, which is a purchase certificate that has been issued in the name of their father in January, 1976. The third respondent stakes claim on the same property on the strength of another purchase certificate, which is produced in the writ petition as Ext.P8, which was also issued in the year 1976.

3. The genesis of the controversy is that at the time when Ext.P8 was issued in favour of the father of the third respondent, the property comprised in survey No.726/3 was not included. The petitioners, therefore, say that the property comprised in this survey number was at no time given in ownership to the third respondent or her father and that, therefore, she has no right over the same at all.

4. It appears that subsequently, in the year 1995, the petitioners were constrained to file a suit against certain other persons regarding the ownership and possession of this very same property. That suit was numbered as O.S. No.896 of 1995 on the files of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. It transpires that this suit was decreed as prayed for by the petitioners in the year 2011 and that the property was conveyed by the process of delivery through orders of the court below in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners, thereafter, made applications for transfer of registry of the property in their name, which was objected to by the third respondent by producing a purchase certificate which included this property also in her name.

5. The interesting aspect of this controversy is that what the third respondent relies upon is the same purchase certificate that is issued to her father in the year 1976, namely Ext.P8 but which was corrected by orders of the Land Tribunal in the year 1996. The petitioners contend and assert that this correction was made fraudulently and by practice of deception since the Land Tribunal had no power to make such corrections and also since these corrections were effected in Ext.P8 without notice to them. The petitioners challenge Ext.P8 as being illegal, unlawful and having been issued without jurisdiction.

6. Heard the learned Senior counsel Mr.K. Jagadeeschandran Nair assisted by Mr. K. Nandakumar appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Martin Jose appearing on behalf of the third respondent, Sri.Thomas P. Kuruvila appearing for the second respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 4.

7. Even though an application has been filed by a third party for being impleaded as an additional respondent as I.A. No.10562 of 2015 the same has not been allowed and consequently he has not been brought on the array of parties. This is because, I notice that the impleading petitioner may not be relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in this writ petition.

8. As I have already noticed above, the essential controversy in this case is as regards the alleged correction that has been made in Ext.P8 purchase certificate in favour of the third respondent. It is obvious that when Ext.P8 was originally issued in the year 1976, in the name of the father of the third respondent, the property comprised in survey No.726/3 was not included. The inclusion happened only in