GANGADHARAN NAMBIAR Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL KASRAGOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a cultivating tenant under 3rd respondent's deceased husband, V. K. Narayanan Nair. 'J' Form application signed by the petitioner and said to have been signed by Sri. Narayanan Nair was presented before the Land Tribunal, Kasaragod under the provisions of S 72 MM of the Kerala Act 1 of 1964 and R.13 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules. At that time ceiling proceedings with reference to the petitioner was pending before the Taluk Land Board, Kasaragod. In view of the pendency of those proceedings, the Land Tribunal dismissed 'J' Form application under Ext. P1 order on 4-8-1973. The ceiling proceedings ended with the order dated 31-7-1976 determining the excess land in the possession of the petitioner and directing him to surrender excess land so determined. It is seen from the order of the Taluk Land Board that the property which the petitioner claims under Narayanan Nair had been reckoned for computing the total extent of land but omitted from Part D of the Ceiling Order. On 19-5-1977 the petitioner preferred an appeal as A. A. No. 3067 of 1978 against Ext P1 order of the Land Tribunal. That appeal was dismissed on 17-8-1981 as not competent. The petitioner has filed the original petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India on 30-11-1981 seeking to quash Ext. P1 order of the Land Tribunal and seeking a direction to the Land Tribunal to dispose of the 'J' Form application on merits.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority as incompetent was not justified. The 'J' Form proceedings are initiated under S.72MM of the Kerala Act 1 of 1964 It is sub-section (3) of that section which relates to the order to be passed by the Land Tribunal. The order under S.72MM(3) is not one of the orders against which an appeal is provided under S.102 of the Act. It is, therefore, clear that Ext. P1 order is not an appealable order. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that because S.72MM(4) of the Act requires the Land Tribunal to follow the procedure prescribed in sub-sections I, 2, 3A, 4 and 5 of S.72 F, the order passed under S.72MM(3) of the Act is an order passed under S.72F(5) of the Act S.72F(5) deals with an order to be passed in a suo motu proceeding relating to assignment of landlord's rights to the cultivating tenant or an application moved by such cultivating tenant under S.72B(2) of the Act. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that an order passed under S.72 MM (3) of the Act has to be treated as an order passed under S.72F(5) of the Act. What S.72MM(4) of the Act requires is a particular procedure to be followed. Various sub-sections of S.72F of the Act lay down the procedure to be followed. It is only such procedure which the Land Tribunal has to follow in 'J' Form proceedings. That does not in any way mean that an order passed under S.72MM(3) of the Act following the procedure mentioned in S.72F of the Act will amount to an order passed under S.72F(5) of the Act. S.72MM(8) provides the remedy to a person who is not a party to the 'J' Form proceedings. No right of appeal has been conferred on him; on the other hand, he has been enabled to file an application before the Land Tribunal to set aside the order passed on the 'J' Form proceedings and a specific right of appeal is conferred as against an order passed under S 72MM(8) of the Act. This also makes it clear that no appeal would lie against an order under S.72MM(3) of the Act.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is directed against the dismissal of the 'J' Form proceedings by the Land Tribunal on 4-8-1973. The dismissal was on the ground of the pendency of the ceiling proceedings before the Taluk Land Board. Those proceedings ended on 31-7-1976. For nearly 10 months thereafter the petitioner did not make any move. He moved only on 19-5-1977 by way of an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority against the order of the Land Tribunal. He did not seek assistance of this Court even then. It is only three months and 13 days after the dismissal of the appeal that he has approached this Court. I do not think, whatever be the defect in Ext. P1 order, that defect can be set right by this Court at this distance of time, particularly in the light of the conduct of the petitioner.