Procedural deficiencies by the Land Tribunal require reasoned orders under statutory provisions, allowing for judicial review and appellate remedies.

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.

This Writ Petition has been instituted by the Executive Officer of the Chirackal Kovilakom Devaswom, aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the Land Tribunal, arrayed as the 4th respondent herein. The petitioner contends that the Land Tribunal concluded the proceedings in S.M. No. 46/2022, S.M. No. 25/2022, S.M. No.20/2019 and S.M. No. 21/2019 in favour of the respondents 7, 8, 9 and 10 herein, by merely recording the outcome as “Allowed,” without passing any reasoned or speaking orders. It is specifically contended that such disposal was effected in blatant disregard of the mandatory provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1963, and in clear violation of the binding directions issued by this Court in Jayaprakashan K. v. State of Kerala , (2023 (3) KLT 541) . It is on the aforesaid grounds that the present Writ Petition has been filed, seeking the following reliefs:

(i) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, to call for the entire records culminated in the single word order ‘Allowed’ in Ext.P5 proceedings in S.M. No.46/2022, Ext.P9 proceedings in S.M. No.25/2022, Ext.P12 proceedings in S.M. No.20/2019 and Ext.P14 proceedings in S.M. No.21/2019 on the file of the 4th Respondent land Tribunal and to quash the same;

(ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing that the Respondent No.4 to reconsider S.M. No.46/2022, S.M. No.25/2022, S.M. No.20/2019 and S.M. No.21/2019 by following the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1963, by following the specific guidelines issued in Jayaprakashan K. v. State of Kerala (2023(3) KLT

541) and to pass orders after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and other stake holders;

2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is stated that insofar as S.M. No. 20/2019 and S. M. No. 21/2019 are concerned, orders have been passed by the Tribunal in accordance with law. Copy of the Order and the Purchase Certificate in SM No 20/2024 dated 27.12.2024 is produced as Annexure R4(a) and R4(b) and copy of the Order and the Purchase Certificate in SM No 21/2024 dated 21.12.2024 is produced as Annexure R4(c) and R4(d). It is contended that if the petitioner is in any way aggrieved, it is for the petitioner to have recourse to the appellate remedy constituted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1963. Insofar as S.M. No. 46/2022 and S.M. No. 25/2022 are concerned, it is submitted that on a detailed perusal of the records, it was found that although the docket sheets record that the petitions were “allowed,” there are no corresponding reasoned orders passed by the Land Tribunal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that there is no reason to intervene in the orders passed by the Land Tribunal in S. M. No.46/2022 and 25/2022. The only remedy left open to the petitioner is recourse to the statutory remedy as contended by the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that insofar as S.M. No. 20/2019 and S.M. No.21/2019 are concerned, certified copies of the orders have not been issued to the petitioner concerned.

5. We have considered the submissions advanced.

6. Insofar as S.M. No.20/2019 (Ext. P12) and S.M. No.21/2019 (Ext.

P14) are concerned, as considered orders have been passed, we are of the view that it is for the petitioner to mount a challenge against the same before the appellate authority constituted under Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1963. As it is submitted that the certified copies of the orders have not been served, we direct the concerned respondent to serve a copy of the orders to the petitioners on an application being filed. On receipt of the order, the petitioner may challenge