M ALAVI Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY LAND REFORMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be a cultivating tenant; and he filed an application under S. 72-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 before the Land Tribunal, Tanur for assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of a land which he claimed to be a holding. THE second respondent contended that the petitioner was not a cultivating tenant, and that he was not entitled to purchase the said land. Both parties claimed to be in possession of the property to the exclusion of the other. THE Land Tribunal issued an order of injunction restraining the second respondent from entering on the land, holding that the petitioner appeared to be in possession of the same. THE second respondent filed an appeal from the above order before the first respondent, the Appellate Authority, who passed an interlocutory order, Ext. P-1 dated 2-5-197 2 , appointing an advocate as receiver of the said land until other arrangements are made or further orders are passed. This writ petition has been filed to quash the above order, and also to restrain the first respondent from proceeding with the appeal.

(2.) THE main ground of attack against Ext. P-1 is that it is an order without jurisdiction, since the order of the Land Tribunal is not appealable. THE order appealed from is one passed admittedly under R. 92 of the kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970. It is S. 102of the Act which provides for appeals; and it does not provide for an appeal from an order made under any rule. Counsel for the second respondent contended that the order appealed from can be brought under S. 72-F of the Act, which is one of the sections, orders under which are made appealable under S. 102. He submitted that the procedure to be followed by a Land Tribunal on receipt of an application under S. 72-B, and its powers in respect of the disposal of such an application are contained in s. 72f, and that any order passed on such an application should be brought within the ambit of that section. THE argument, though attractive cannot stand a close scrutiny. It was not contended that R. 92 is ultra vires of the Act. It confers various incidental powers on the Land Tribunal for implementing the provisions of the Act and the rules thereunder. THE power to grant an injunction is one of those powers. Orders made in exercise of incidental powers are interlocutory orders; and such orders would not be appealable by virtue of the fact that the final order made in the case is appealable. Right of appeal is a creature of the Statute; and no order would be appealable unless the statute so provides. It is fallacious to contend that, since an order under S. 72f is appealable, every interlocutory order passed on an application under S. 72b, which has to be disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid down in S. 72f is also appealable. THE order granting an injunction does not clearly fall within the ambit of S. 72f. THE contention that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in entertaining an appeal from such an order has, therefore, to be upheld.