PONNU Vs. LEKSHMANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner made an application O. A. No. 874/ 70 before the Land Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, under S. 80-B of the Kerala Land reforms Act for purchase of kudikidappu. THE 1st respondent before me is the owner of the land on which the kudikidappu is situate. On the finding that the petitioner is a kudikidappukaran and that the building is a hut within the meaning of the Act, the Land Tribunal allowed the application by order dated 21-4-1972. THE order re-ids as follows: "the applicant has applied for the purchase of kudikidappu under S. 80-B of the K. LR. Act. Notices were issued to the parties also. THE applicant was present when the case was taken up for hearing. On perusal of the records it is seen that the respondents have not put forth any valid objections to the kudikidappu right of the applicant. THE applicant is therefore declared as a kudikidappukars. She is eligible to purchase kudikidappu to the extent of 5 cents in survey No. 188/ioa of the Chenkal village Neyyattinkara Taluk which is within the Neyyattinkara Municipality . THE statement of particulars required as per Rule 86 of the tenancy rules is furnished separately. " THEreafter on 17-5-1973, the 2nd respondent before me made an application before the Land Tribunal to be impleaded as supplemental applicant and for the issue of the certificate of purchase in the joint names of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. On this application, there is an office-note as follows: "please see the report of the R. I. In the circumstances reported by the R. I. the pending case No. 864/72 may be struck off from the file and the patta in case No. 874/70 may be jointly issued in the names of krtpa Ponnu and Yovan Pathrose". It may be noted that the application by the petitioner before the Land Tribunal was O. A. 874/70, and it would appear that a similar application was later tiled by the 2nd respondent Yovan Pathrose as 0 A No. 864/ 72, THEre is an order by the Land Tribunal on the application for impleadment of the 2nd respondent as follows: 'issue joint patta impleading Yovan Pathrose and struck off case No. 864/72. (Sd.) 295 -1973. " In pursuance to this order the Land Tribunal has added the name of the 2nd respondent in the order it had passed on 21-4-1972 for the issue of a certificate of purchase to the petitioner. THE order of the Land tribunal as it stands at present shows that there are two applicants. THE name of the 2nd respondent is shown as second applicant "impleaded as 2nd applicant as per order dated 29-5-1973". THE application for impleadment filed by the 2nd respondent this itself long after the Land Tribunal had passed orders for the issue of a certificate of purchase to the petitioner. No notice of the application for impleadment is seen given to the petitioner who was the sole applicant before the Land Tribunal. THE Land Tribunal after having passed final orders in O. A. No. 874 of 1970 on 21-4-1972 has no jurisdiction to alter the order by adding the second respondent as the second applicant and directing the issue of the certificate of purchase in the joint names of the applicants. In pursuance to the order impleading the 2nd respondent, a certificate of purchase in the joint names of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was issued by the Land Tribunal. When the petitioner noticed that the certificate of purchase was issued in the joint names of herself and the 2nd respondent, she filed an appeal to the Land Board, Trivandrum. THE Land Board gave a reply stating that it has no jurisdiction to correct the mistake committed by the land Tribunal, and directing the petitioner to file an appeal to the Appellate authority. Accordingly, an appeal was filed with a petition to condone the delay in presenting the appeal in trine. THE Appellate Authority rejected the application for condoning the delay, and m consequence the appeal itself was dismissed It is against this that the petitioner has come up in revision before this Court.

(2.) AFTER the case was disposed of by the Land Tribunal on 21-4-1972, it had no jurisdiction to implead the 2nd respondent as an additional applicant before it and direct the issue of a certificate of purchase in the joint names of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent The 2nd respondent's application for impleading as supplemental 2nd applicant is itself seen filed after the case had been disposed of The order of the Land Tribunal to implead the 2nd respondent as the 2nd applicant and for the issue of a certificate of purchase in the joint names of both the persons is passed without even issuing a notice to the petitioner who was the sole applicant before the Land Tribunal and on whose application there was already a final order for the issue of a certificate of purchase to her The Land Tribunal has acted without jurisdiction in impleading the 2nd respondent. S. 101 of the kerala Land Reforms Act provides that the Land Board and the Land Tribunal shall have all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, I 08, in respect of the matters specified therein. Impleadment of additional parties is not a matter among those enumerated in the section. The Section provides that such powers as is mentioned in sub-section (1) shall extend to any other matter which may be prescribed. The only other matter prescribed is contained in Rule 92 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy)Rules Rule 92 also does not empower the Land Tribunal to implead additional parties except as regards legal representatives of a deceased party in proceedings before it The Land Tribunal is a statutory Tribunal constituted under S. 99 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and its powers and jurisdiction are confined to those conferred on it by the Act, and the Rules issued thereunder. Even assuming that Land Tribunals have jurisdiction to implead additional parties, the procedure adopted by the Land Tribunal in the present case is clearly beyond its powers. Once it has pronounced final orders in a matter, brought up before it, being a judicial Tribunal, it has no jurisdiction to add parties to share the benefits of the order passed in favour of the applicant before it. The impugned order directing the issue of a certificate of purchase in the joint names of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent cannot be allowed to stand.