Holding

A certificate of assignment under Section 72‑K is conclusive, and once granted to a tenant, the Land Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to issue another certificate; thus the High Court’s order was set aside.

Summary

The appellant, Patinhare Purayil Nabeesumma, claimed title and possession of land for which her husband, a cultivating tenant, had obtained a certificate of purchase under the Kerala Land Reforms Act in 1976. The respondents later obtained a second certificate for the same land in 1977. The trial court and first appellate court held in favour of the appellant, but the Kerala High Court set aside that finding on the basis that both parties failed to prove title and the respondent had prior possession. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme, holding that a certificate of assignment under Section 72‑K is conclusive and that once issued, the Land Tribunal cannot grant another certificate unless the first is set aside for fraud. The Court also clarified that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to determining whether an applicant is a cultivating tenant under Section 13, and that the ultimate determination of title and possession lies with the civil courts. Consequently, the High Court’s order was unsustainable and was set aside, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the Land Tribunal had jurisdiction to issue a second certificate of assignment when a prior certificate had already been granted.
Whether a certificate of assignment under Section 72‑K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is conclusive evidence of title.
Whether the appellant qualified as a cultivating tenant within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act.
Whether the High Court erred in relying solely on the Tribunal’s findings without considering the civil court’s factual determinations.
Whether the appellant is entitled to possession of Item No.2 of Schedule B.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 110
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963s. 13, s. 72, s. 72-B, s. 72-K

Subjects

Kerala Land Reforms Actcertificate of assignmentcultivating tenantland tribunal jurisdictiontitle and possessionconclusive evidenceSection 13Section 72Section 72-Kpresumption of possession

Judgment

[2008) 2 S.C.R. 796 :

.).;
A PATINHARE PURAYIL NABEESUMMA
II.
MINIYATAN ZACHARIAS AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 1231 of 2007)
FEBRUARY 12, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
.,_,->
...
Kerela Land Reforms Act, 1963 - ss.. 13, 72, 728 and 72
K(2) - Certificate of assignment of right title and interest of
c landlord in favour of tenant - Grant of - Held: Land tribunal on
reference made by civil court is required to arrive at a finding
that the applicant was cultivating tenant uls. 13 - On facts,
land tribunal issued two certificates of assignment for the same .
land to appellant-tenant and respondent - Appellant proved
D her title as also possession - Her husband was cultivating
tenant in respect of the suit property- Certificate was granted ~
in favour of tenant earlier and was not set aside on the ground
of fraud or illegality, was conclusive even as against Land
Tribunal - Thus, Land Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to
issue second certificate - High Court on basis of the findings
E
of tribunal could not have held that tenant. was intermediatory
and as such ·his estate also vested with respondent - Thus,
order of High Court is unsustainable and set aside.
Appellant's husband was in c.ultivating possession
F of fiv~ items of properties as a tenant under one J. He
· appli~d fo_r the c~rtificate of purchase· and was granted ·
. the· same by the Land Tribunal in 1976. Respondents were
.also granted certificate. of purchase for the same land in
1977: Appeilant then filed suit for permanent injunction
G and for recovery of possession of the immovable
. properties in Schedule A and B of the plaint. The trial judge 7··
decreed the suit for all the items of the suit land, except
item no 1 of Schedule 8. The appellate co~r:t upheld t~.-e ..
findings with regard to item no 1 ·in plaint B Sch~dule;
H 796
PATINHARE PURAYIL NABEESUMMA v. MINIYATAN 797
ZACHARIAS AND'ANOTHER
.. however set aside the finding with regard to item no 2 in A
the plaint B Schedule. The matter was remanded to the
lower court for refering the matter to the land tribunal. The
Land tribunal opined ·that except the receipts and the
purchase certificate, the appellant did not produce any
• other title deeds evidencing tenancy and the respondents 8

... "-:1
though were in possession of the property but did ·not
possess any valid title deeds evidencing tenancy, and·
thus, had no tenancy right over the said property. Trial
court in view of the fact that the appellant was able to prove
~ his possession by producing tax receipts from 1955 c
onwards; whereas the defendants were paying tax from
.., 1977 onwards, held that the appellant had title to item No.2
in the B schedule property and was entitled to recover
'• possession of the property from the respondent. The first
appellate court upheld the order of the trial court
D
..;. Respondents then filed second appeal. High Court held
that as both the parties failed to prove their title over the
property, the respondent being in prior possession over
item No.2 of Schedule B of the suit property, the suit
should have been dismissed to that extent. Hence the ~

present appeal. E

Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 72-8 of the Kerela Land Reforms
J Act, 1963 empowers the Tribunal to entertain an
1
application for assignment of the right, title and interest F
of the landlord in favour of the tenant on payment of a
price to be determined in the manner envisaged
thereunder. Therefore, jurisdiction of the Tribunal was

'
,
__
restricted. Before arriving at a conclusion that the
applicant was entitled to a certificate of assignment, a G
finding was required to be arrived at that he was a
cultivating tenant within the meaning of Section 13 of the
Act. The properties of the erstwhile landlord or
intermediates having vested in the State,· they were
conferred a limited right, namely, the right to receive the H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A sale proceeds. [Paras 25 and 26] [807-A, B, C, DJ
2: 1 In respect of four items of the properties, the
plaintiff-appellant has been able to prove her title as also
the possession. The fact that her husband was the
cultivating tehant in respect of the suit property is not fn
B dispute. The tax receipts filed by her also go to show that
the entire suit land was the subject matter of grant of
tenancy by the landlord and if not from a date, tax has
been p~id by the appellant-plaintiff atleast from 1955
onwards. In view of Section 11 O of the Evidence Act a
C presumption can be raised in regard to possession both
backward· and forward. Once a certificate of assignment
had been granted in favour of the husband of the appellant,
no other certific~te could have been issued unless a
finding of fact was arrived at that the first certificate
o was obtained by fraud. [Paras 24 and 27] [806-F, G, H; .
807-A, D, E]
Hamza Haji vs. State of Kera/a and Anr. 2006 (8) SCALE
75; A.A. Gopa/akrishnan vs. Cochin Devaswom Board and
·Ors. 2007 (~O) SCALE 572 - relied on.
E
2.2 The Land Tribunal could not have, on the basis
of a stray statement made by a co-villager, arrived at a
finding that the defendant had been in possession. The
said purported finding on the basis of a statement made
before the Revenue Inspector could not have been acted
F upon. In any event, the Civil Court was the final court of
fact. Before it oral or documentary evidence had been
adduced. It was not bound by the observations made by
the Tribunal either in regard to title or possession of the
property. The Tribunal moreover failed to consider that a
G tenancy can be created orally upon delivery of
possession and/or upon grant of rent receipt. Rent receipt 7-
· indisputably evidences possession. What was relevant
for the purpose of determination of the issue was who
was in possession of the properties in question when
H Section 72-B of the Act·came into force. As the Tribunai
PATINHARE PURAYIL NABEESUMMA v. MINIYATAN 799
ZACHARIAS AND ANOTHER
• itself had issued two certificates, the jurisdiction ·to A
determine the right, title and interest as also possession
of the suit properties was only with the Civil Courts.
Therefore, it is not correct to contend that as on the
basis of the purported report, the Tribunal had found
possession over the plot in question. [Paras 28 and 29] B
[807-E, F; 808-A, B, C]
."-,..,,
. 2.3 The approach of the High Court was not correct.
The right to obtain a certificate of assignment is dependent
upon one's right as a tenant in terms of s. 13 of the Act
and not otherwise. The High Court could not have held c
that the appellant was an intermediatory and as such his
estate had also vested with the respondents. No
contention was raised by the appellant that the respondent
was the sub-tenant of the appellant. The_ same was
irrelevant. The High Court proceeded only on the basis D
-+ of the findings of the Tribunal. It failed to notice that for all
intent and purport the said findings was over turned by
the Civil Court, wherefor it had the requisite jurisdiction.
[Paras 30 and 31] [808-C, D, E]
2.4 A certificate issued under s. 72-K of the Act is E
conclusive. Once the same is found to be conclusive, the
same cannot be refused to be taken into consideration
for any purpose whatsoever. Therefore, the only issue
which, should have been raised by the High Court was
) as to who was entitled thereto, keeping in view the fact F
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 G
~ the same having not been set aside on the ground of fraud
or illegality, it was conclusive even as against the Land
Tribunal. Therefore, the Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction
to issue a second certificate. [Para 32] [808-F, G, H; 809-A]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1231 H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 2 S.C.R.

A of 2008 ..
From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2007 of
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in SA No. 643/1994.
T.V. George R. Marar and Vikram S. Mawari for the
s Appellant.
H.V. Hameed, Ranjit K.C., Alex Thomas and K. Rajeev for ,..?--
the Respondents. ~ ·

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession
is before us, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment
and decree dated 25tli January, 2007 passed by a learned
Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Second Appeal No.
0
643 of 1994, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order ..t-
ot the first appellate court dated 13th January, 1994 as also that
of the trial court dated 27th February, 1993 respectively,
decreeing the suit of the appellant, were set aside.
E 3. In this appeal we are concerned only with Item No.2 of
the properties described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint, which
reads as under:- -
Schedule. B

F Item No. Revised Survey No. Measurement
1 9017 21 cents B
2 90/3 26 cents A
3 90/8 13.5 cents F
G
4. Husband of the appellant was an agriculturist. He was ~
in cultivating possession of five items of properties as a tenant
under one Jenmi Palkodan Kunhmina Ayissa. Appellant
contended that her husband had been in possession of the suit
H land from the date of settlement which took place in the year
. PATINHARE PURAYIL NABEESUMMA v. MINIYATAN 801
ZACHARIAS AND ANOTHER [S.B. SINHA, J.]
.,....
1943; and in support thereof, Revenue Tax Receipts since 1955 A
were filed.
5. The Legislature of the State of Kerala enacted Kerala
Land Reforms Act, 1963 (the Act for short) with a view to enact
a comprehensive legislation relating to tand reforms in the State.
B
·. 6. Section 13 of the Act provides for rights of tenants for
A; fixity of tenure in respect of the land holding. Section 27 of the
Act provides for determination of a fair rent which a tenant is
liable to pay to the tandlord. Section 53 confers upon a cultivating
tenant who is entitled to fixity of tenure, a right to purchase the c
-· right, title, interest and ownership of the land by moving an
application before the Land Tribunal constituted under the Act
upon payment of purchase price as may be determined in the
manner laid down under Section 55 thereof. Section 72 of the
Act, which was inserted in the year 1969, provides for vesting
D
of the landlords' rights in the Sts;tte as regards holdings held by
... cultivating tenants entitled to fixity of tenure and in respect of
which certificate of purchase has not been issued under sub-
section (2) of Section 59.
7. Whereas Section 72 provides for cultivating tenant's E
right to assignment of the land which he had been holding,
Section 72-F provides that where an application under Section
72-B is moved before the Land Tribunal, it upon issuing a notice
.to the landlord and other intermediaries, if any, may determine
the quantum of compensation and purchase price payable F
7
therefor.
8. A certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal to
the cultivating tenant under sub-clause (2) of Section 72-K is
conclusive proof of assignment to the tenant of the right, title
and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, over G
~'\ the holding or portion thereof to which the assignment relates.
9. Indisputably the husband of the appellant applied for
and has been granted a certificate of purchase by the Land
Tribunal in the year 1976.
H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A 10. Respondents also applied for and were granted such ...\
a certificate by the Land Tribunal of the same land in 1977. Two
certificates, therefore, came to be issued in respect of the same
land.
11. Inter alia on the premise that she may be dispossessed
B the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction and for recovery
of possession of the immovable properties described in
Schedules A and B of the plaint. In their written statement, the
defendants did not raise any contention with regard to the plots
,_~.

....
of land described in Schedule A of the plaint. However, the right,
c title and possession of the appellant in regard to the plots of
land mentioned in Schedule B were questioned.
12. Several issues were framed by the learned trial Judge,
the relevant one being Issue Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, which read as
under:-
D
"1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint
properties?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed
for?
E
4 Whether the plaintiff has title to the plaint schedule
property?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of
possession of any portion of the plaint schedule
F property?" -,.
13. On 25th March, 1988 the learned trial Judge decreed
the suit of the plaintiff appellant for all the items of the suit land,
except for Item No.1 of Schedule B.
G 14. On appeals preferred by the appellant as well as the
respondents, the learned Subordinate Judge, Thalassery, 7-
passed the following order on 18th December, 1990.
"10. In view of the foregoing discussions, I hold that the·
finding of the trial Court with re~ard to -items 2 and 3 in the
H
PATINHARE PURAYIL NABEESUMMA v. MINIYATAN 803
ZACHARIAS AND ANOTHER [S.B. SINHA, J.]

,.. plaint A schedule is liable to be confirmed. So also the A
finding of the trial Court in favour to the plaintiff for recovery
of possession of item No.3 in the plaint B schedule is also
to be confirmed. The finding of the lower Court with regard
to item No.1 in the plaint B schedule that the same belongs
to the defendants is also to be confirmed. But, the finding B
on item No.2 in the plaint B schedule is liable to be set
aside and the tiuestion of tenancy over this item (R.S. 90/
~
~
3) has to be remanded to the lower court for referring the
matter to the Land Tribunal for a fresh· adjudication. The
point is answered accordingly." c
15. The learned Munsif, in view of the aforementioned, as
also the two conflicting certificates, referred the matter to the
Land Tribunal.
16. In its order dated 15th October, 1992, the Land
D
. Tribunal, in regard to the possession of the parties, opined :-
"Except the receipts referred to above and Ex.A2 purchase
certificate, the plaintiff has not produced any other title
deeds evidencing tenancy or of creation of tenancy in
favour of plaintiff's predecessors by the land owner." E
It was held :-

"The respondent did not produce any jenmam deed to
prove conclusive that Shri Palakodan Moideen is the actual
jenmi of the suit property.
F
7
The case is that the 1st respondent (defendant). does
not possess any title deeds or valid documents evidencing
tenancy except some land revenue receipts towards
payment of assessment since the year 1976-77, the
manuscript rent receipts available in the case records as G
:1
Ex. B 1 to B 1(f) have not been proved and as such the
·~
receipts have no evidentiary value. The mere production
of land tax receipts cannot be taken as a conclusive
evidence to prove the title to the property. The 1st
respondent (defendant) has no title deeds, whatsoever, to H-

•
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 2 S.C.R.

A establish creation of tenancy in his favour on or- before ~

1.4.1964. But the 1st respondent has obtained purchase
certificate in SM 6343/77 dt. 31.10.1977 (Ex.83) by filing
J form statement whereas the plaintiffs predecessor had
obtained purchase certificate previously for the same
B property as per SM 6324/75 dated 7.6.76 by filing J form
statement. It is evident that one of the purchase certificate
has been obtained by fraud or collusion,·but none of the ~·
aggrieved parties did not approach this tribunal for remedy
under section 72MM (7) of the KLR Act. "
c On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of .•
the case and the report of the authorized officer I am
satisfied that the respondents (A party in SM 6343/77) is
in possession of the property but he does not possess
any valid title deeds evidencing tenancy. No valid records
D have been produced by the respondent (defendant) (A
party in SM 6343/77) to establish creation of tenancy in
his favour by the land owner on or before 1.4.1964. As a +
result, I hold that the respondents/defendant in OS 105/85
are having no tenancy right over th~ said property."
E 17. Before the trial court, the parties adduc~d oral as well
as documentary evidence. Keeping in view the fact that the
plaintiff has been able to prove his possession by producing
tax receipts from 1955 onwards; whereas the defendants were

F
paying tax from 1977 onwards, the learned trial Judge in his
judgment dated 27th February, 1993 held :- ,,
"On a proper appraisal of the evidence adduced in this
case it may be safely concluded that the property
comprised in R.S. No. 90/3 the predecessor in interest of
the plaintiff, Bavu Valappil Mammad had title over these
G
property. This right has been subsequently developed on
the plaintiff. In the light of discussions made this court is ·-r-
satisfied that the plaintiff has title to item No.2 in the B
schedule property and she is entitled to recover possession

H
·of the same as it is evident that the defendant is in

.
~

'
~
PATINHARE PURAYIL NABEESUMMA v. MINIYATAN 805
ZACHARIAS AND ANOTHER [S.B. SINHA, J.]

,. possession of the same." A
As regards the contention of the defendants that they had
acquired title by adverse possession, it was held that the same
has not been proved.
18. The first appellate court, by its judgment dated 13th 8
January, 1994, affirmed the said findings of the learned trial court
..._ holding that the purchase certificate was granted by the Tribunal
> upon service of notice upon Ayisumma, who was the original
landlord. It was held :-

"There is also no satisfactory ~r reliable evidence to prove c
that the appellants have been in possession of item No.2
of B schedule at any point of time. If realiy the first appellant
had been In possession of the property eversince 1959
atleast he would have paid the assessment in respect of
the plaint schedule property. But for the first time the D
assessment was paid by the respondent in 1974. This is
... jusf prior to the initiation of proceedings before the Land
Tribunal. From the evidence available in this case I find
that the Land Tribunal and the lower correct correctly came
to the conclusion that the respondent is the tenant of the E
· disputed property and item No.2 of B schedule belongs to
her. So th.is point is answered in favour of the respondent."

Plea of the respondents in regard to his claim_ of adverse
possession was also negated.
F
19. The High Court in the second appeal filed by the
" respondents framed the following S':Jbstantial question of law :-

"Whether the courts below were justified in holding that
the plaintiff has title to be granted a decree for recovery of
possession of B schedule item No.2 from the defendants, G
after the Land Tribunal had found that the plaintiff does not
-~ have valid title deeds evidencing tenancy?"

20. The High Court proceeded on the basis that as both
the parties failed to prove their title over the property, the
H
~
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2.008) 2 S.C.R.

A defendant-respondent being in prior possession over item No.2
~
of Schedule B of the suit property, the suit should have been
dismissed to that extent.
21. Mr. T.V. George, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant in support of the appeal would submit :- .....
B
1) The High Court committed a serious error in
..
I-

interfering with the concurrent finding of fact arrived '
i-

at by the courts below in regard to possession of the
,,,,..,
~
appellant.
c 2) Keeping in view the underlying principle governing i
the Act, the fact that was required to be determined
'
was whether respondent No.1, having failed to prove
that he was a tenant within the meaning of Section
13 of the Act, could have been granted a certificate
D of assignment.
22. Mr. H.V. Hameed, learned counsel appearing on behalf
~
of the first respondent, on the other hand, urged that the learned
trial court as also the court of appeal proceeded to determine
the issue only on the premise that the defendant being a sub-
E
tenant under the plaintiff-appellant, the High Court cannot be
said to have committed any error in applying the correct legal r..
principle, namely that if the parties have not been able to prove
their title, the respondent who was in prior possession, should
be allowed to continue to do so.
F
23. We have noticed hereinbefore the relevant provisions
of the Act.
-. ~

24. In respect of four items of the properties, the plaintiff-
appellant has been able to prove her title as also the possession. r
G The fact that her husband was the cultivating tenant in respect
of the suit property is not in dispute. The tax receipts filed by her
also go to show that the entire suit land was the subject matter T-
of grant of tenancy by the landlord arid if not from a date, tax has
been paid by the appellant-plaintiff atleast from 1955 onwards.
H In view of Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act a presumption
PATINHARE PURAYIL NABEESUMMA v. MINIYATAN 807
ZACHARIAS AND ANOTHER [S.B. SINHA, J.]

can be raised in regard possession both backward and forward. A
25. Section 72 of the Act was inserted in the year 1969. If
prior to coming into force of 1969 amendment Act, a tenant had
purchased the right, title and interest of the landlord, the matter
might have been different. Section 72-B of the Act empowers
the Tribunal to entertain an application for assignment of the B

....
.... right, title and interest of the landlord in favour of the tenant on
~ payment of a price to be determined in the manner envisaged
thereunder.
26. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal, therefore, was c
restricted. Before arriving at a conclusion that the applicant was
entitled to a certificate of assignment, a finding was required to
be arrived at that he was a cultivating tenant within the meaning
of Section 13 of the Act. The properties of the erstwhile landlord
or intermediates having vested in the State, they were conferred
D
a limited right, namely, the right to receive the sale proceeds.
~

27. Once a certificate of assignment had been granted in
favour of the husband of the appellant, no other certificate could
have been issued unless a finding of fact was arrived at that the
first certificate was obtained by fraud as was the case in Hamza E
Haji vs. State of Kera/a and another : 2006 (8) SCALE 75 and
A.A. Gopalakrishnan vs. Cochin Devaswom Board and others:
2007 (10) SCALE 572.
28. The Land Tribunal on the reference made by a Ci,vil
'r Court was required to arrive at the conclusion one way or the F
other as to whether the plaintiff or the defendant was the
cultivating tenant within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act. It
could not have, on the basis of a stray statement made by a co-
villager, arrived at a finding that the defendant had been in
possession. The said purported finding on the basis of a G
·'\ statement made before the Revenue Inspector, CR, Payyannur
could not have been acted upon.
29. In any event, the Civil Court was the final court of fact.
Before it oral or documentary evidence had been adduced. It
H
,
I
l-

808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 2 S.C.R.

A was not bound by the observations made by the Tribunal either
in regard to title or possession of the property. The. Tribunal
moreover failed to consider that a tenancy can be created orally
upon delivery of possession and/or upon grant of rent receipt.
Rent receipt indisputably evidences possession. What was
B relevant for the purpose of determination of the issue was who ;
t
was in possession of the properties in question when Section
72-B of the Act came into force. As the Tribunal itself had issued ,._A.
two certificates, the jurisdiction to determine the right, title and ~

interest as also possession of.the suit properties was only with
c the Civil Courts. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that as on
the basis of the purported report, the Tribunal had found
possession .over the plot in question.
30. The approach of the High Court, with respect, was not
correct. The right to obtain a certificate of assignment is
D dependent upon one's right as a tenant in terms of Section 13
of the Act and not otherwise. The High Court could not have 4'- ...
held that the appellant was an intermediatory and as such his
estate had also vested with the respondents. No contention was
t
raised by the appellant that the respondent was the sub-tenant
.E of the appellant. The same, in our opinion, was irrelevant. I
.
~

31. The High Court proceeded only on the basis of the
findings of the Tribunal. It failed to notice that for all intent and
purport the said findings was over turned by the Civil Court,

F
wherefor it had the requisite jurisdiction.
32. A certificate issued under Section 72-K of the Act is
,,
~
conclusive. Once the same is found to be onclusive, the same L
cannot be refused to be taken into consideration for any purpose l
whatsoever. The only issue which, therefore, should have been
raised by the High Court was as to who was entitled thereto,
G
keeping in view the fact that the Land Tribunal had granted
certificates ·Of assignment to both the parties. In view of the -r·
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
H
PATINHARE PURAYIL NABEESUMMA v. MINIYATAN 809
ZACHARIAS AND ANOTHER [S.B. SINHA, J.]

same having not been set aside on the ground of fraud or A
illegality, it was conclusive even as against the Land Tribunal.
The Land Tribunal, therefore, had no jurisdiction to issue a
second certificate.
33. For the reasons aforementioned the impugned
judgment of the High Court is unsustainable which is set aside B
accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
N.J. Appeal allowe~.
c