RAMAN Vs. KUNHIPENNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law that falls for decision in this writ petition is whether Art.137 of the Limitation Act. 1963. is applicable to execution proceedings before the Land Tribunal constituted under S.99 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 (the Act).

(2.) The 2nd respondent, the Land Tribunal, by its order dated 4-4-1972, a true copy of which is Ext. P1, had allowed the petitioner's application O. A. No 73 of 1972 under S.77 of the Act for shifting the kudikidappu in the occupation of the 1st respondent from the land described in the A schedule to the land described in the B Schedule to the petition. O. P. No 4789 of 1972 filed by the 1st respondent against Ext. P1 order having been dismissed by this Court as per judgment dated 26-2-1973, a true copy of which is Ext. P2, the petitioner in May 1980 filed I. A. No. 26 of 1980 requesting the Land Tribunal to put the petitioner in possession of the A schedule property in implementation of its order Ext. P1, by shifting the kudikidappu of the 1st respondent to the land described in the B schedule to the petition. The petitioner bad in the meanwhile executed a deed of transfer of the land described in the B schedule to the petition in favour of the Ist respondent and had also deposited with the Land Tribunal the shifting charges in compliance with the directions contained in Ext. P1 order. The petition I. A. No. 26 of 1980 was resisted by the 1st respondent mainly on the ground that it was barred by Limitation under Art.137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Accepting the contention of the 1st respondent, the land Tribunal dismissed the application by its order dated 9-9-1980, a true copy of which is Ext P5: hence this writ petition for quashing Ext. P5 order of the Land Tribunal.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the Land Tribunal had committed a grave error of law in passing Ext. P5 order on the assumption that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, applied generally to the proceedings under the Act. The counsel for the 1st respondent, however, sought to sustain the order contending that the Land Tribunal has all the taperings of an ordinary court of civil judicature, placing reliance on the ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in Kunhayamma v. Munsiff Land Tribunal ( 1979 KLT 663 ).