KUNCHU VELLA Vs. KESAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'Actus curiae neminem gravabit' is a maxim of ancient origin. Though that maxim in terms covers acts of courts only the replacement of courts in many matters, concerning which normally the courts used to function, by quasi judicial and Administrative Tribunals justifies the extension of this maxim to acts of bodies not strictly judicial in character. Adjudicative process stands extended today even to purely administrative Tribunals like licensing authorities, for instance. The citizen faced with a plethora of laws enveloping him in his normal day to day activities is quite often subject to the decisions of statutory functionaries whose decisions may quite often be administrative in character. Their wrong acts and omissions may cause as much barm today as the acts or omissions of courts. Hence the age old maxim that the act of court shall prejudice no man must be read today as extended to the acts and omissions of all authorities and Tribunals engaged in dealing with rights of parties. It would not be fair to visit an innocent party with adverse consequences when he is not at fault and he has performed whatever the statute expects of him. If the default, despite his performance, is on the part of a statutory authority or functionary to do what it ought to, it must be deemed that what such authority has to do has been done.

(2.) The best illustration of the need for applying the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit even in respect of statutory functionary is furnished by the case at hand. S.72P of the Kerala Land Reforms Act provides for abatement of all applications under S.54 of the Act for purchase of the landlord's right by cultivating tenants and all proceedings in connection therewith, whether pending before the appellate authority or the High Court or the Land Board. Such abatement is said to be if certificate of purchase has not been issued under sub-s.(2) of S.59 of the Act. There will be no abatement if such purchase certificate has been issued. On the face of it there seems to be no difficulty. But one may have to refer to S.59 to consider the provision relating to deposit of the purchase price and issue of certificate. Where an application under S.54 is allowed and the purchase price determined under S.57 by the Tribunal the cultivating tenant is to make the requisite deposit with the Tribunal to the credit of the Land Board. Where the purchase price is proposed to be paid in a lump, the entire amount is to be paid within one year. Where that is proposed to be deposited in instalments the first instalment thereof is to be paid within six months from the date on which the order of the Land Tribunal under S.57 has become final. Sub-s.(2) is of particular relevance here. That provides that on deposit of the purchase price in a lump or of the first instalment of the purchase price the Land Board shall issue a certificate of purchase to the cultivating tenant and thereupon the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any shall vest in the cultivating tenant from the date of application under S.54. Therefore once the first instalment is deposited there is the obligation on the Land Board to issue the certificate of purchase. That obligation is a statutory obligation which arises by the very fact of deposit of the first instalment. There is nothing further for the tenant to do to facilitate the issue of certificate of purchase. The deposit is to be before the Tribunal and the issue of the certificate of purchase is by the Land Board. There is no machinery provided under the Act or the rules to invoke the Land Board to issue the certificate. Evidently the issue is to be automatic. In these circumstances if consequence of non issue is that proceedings would abate such consequence should not follow when the party who is entitled to the benefit of certificate of purchase is not in default. When he has performed his part what remains only is the mere issue of certificate of purchase by the Land Board. If that obligation of the Land Board arises irrespective of any conduct on the part of the party concerned the legal consequence would be that the party is deemed to be one who has obtained the certificate of purchase. The consequence literally seen to arise from non issue of a certificate of purchase under such circumstances should not arise so as to adversely affect the party who is entitled to such issue by reason of his having performed all acts contemplated in law necessary to obtain the certificate of purchase.

(3.) Perhaps it is possible to say that there are no proceedings in this case which are to abate by reason of S.72P. That is one way of looking at the question. But I need not go into that question because even assuming that the consequence of abatement would be the loss of status of a person who has acquired the right, title and interest of the landlord that consequence should notarise in this case.