The Kerala High Court on April 17, 2022 in the matter of Annamma & Ors v. P.V. Varkey & Ors., while dealing with a tenancy case established that simply because a contention was raised in the written statement, there is no necessity for the court to refer it to the land tribunal, if it prima facie appears to be a baseless assertion. The single judge bench held that a civil court is only bound to refer a tenancy matter to the land tribunal, if it finds sufficient force in the contention raised by the parties.

In the instant matter, petitioners filed an application in a suit before a Principal Sub Court claiming that as the legal heirs of one Zachariah, they got tenancy right over 29 cents out of the total extent of the plaint schedule property. They sought a reference under Section 125(3) of the Land Reforms Act to get this claim adjudicated by the Land Tribunal. However, the Munsiff dismissed the application finding that the petitioners will not get tenancy right over the property as on the commencement of the Land Reforms Act, the said property was government land, and was therefore vested with the government. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioners moved a plea before the High Court.

The High Court found that prior to the issuance of patta under the Land Assignment Act, the Government was the owner of the property and, therefore, the contention raised by the legal heirs of Zachariah (son of P.P.Varkey) claiming tenancy right over 21 cents of land to Zachariah, is not prima facie sustainable. Since P.P.Varkey did not claim tenancy right over the property, it cannot be held that his son Zachariah obtained the tenancy right. Thus, prima facie the convention of tenancy raised by the petitioners will not sustain.

The High Court referred to the decision in Madhavi Amma v. Kesavan [2008 (1) KLT SN 49] where the single judge had concurred with the earlier decisions and held that there may be several other instances where reference to the land tribunal is not only unnecessary but also unwarranted. In many cases, reference made to the Land Tribunal would be a futile exercise but even in such cases, the civil court is not bound to refer the question of tenancy raised by the defendant to the Land Tribunal.

The Court observed-

“It is true that the Civil Courts cannot decide the question of tenancy. However, the Civil Courts can decide the genuineness of the claim to avoid reference of the claim for tenancy without considering its merits, as observed above.”

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.