PUSHPAMANI Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER filed I.A. 11 of 1989 in S.M.P. 63 of 1988 before the Land Tribunal, Kollam to consider the maintainability of the suo motu proceedings as a preliminary point. Land Tribunal by Ext. P -10 order, dated 26th April 1989 dismissed the petition holding that the case can be decided on merits after taking evidence of both parties.

(2.) PETITIONER contended that S.M.P. 63 of 1988 is not maintainable in view of the earlier decision of the Land Tribunal dropping the suo motu proceedings. Another contention is that the Land Tribunal lacked jurisdiction in initiating suo motu proceedings at the behest of the Land Board as it cannot legally issue any direction to the Land Tribunal.

(3.) PETITIONER contended that the suo motu proceedings initiated on the basis of Ext. P -2 petition was properly enquired into by deputing an authorized officer that he made a report (Ext. P -6) stating that Respondents 4 to 6 have no right under the Act, that relying on Ext. P -6 the Land Tribunal dropped the suo motu proceedings by Ext. P -9 order and as that order has become final it operates as res judicators. Counsel for the Respondents pointed out that in Ext. P -9 there was no adjudication and as it was merely a communication there cannot be any res judicata. There is no merit in the above contention as Ext. P -9 shows that due enquiries were made under the Act and the proceedings were dropped finding that no action can be taken on the basis of the petition. The contention that Ext. P -9 is not an order but only a communication cannot be sustained as it can be discerned from Ext. P -9 that the proceeding initiated was dropped by the Land Tribunal, and it amounts to an order. Ext. P -9 really operates as res judicata.