GOPALAN ADIYODI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 3 and 4 had filed I.A. No. 72/82 for the restoration of their application O.A. No. 1482 of 1977 which was dismissed by the 2nd respondent, Land Tribunal (Deputy Collector), Kozhikode, for default on 20-7-1982 because of the absence of the applicants and their counsel. The 2nd respondent by Ext. P1 order dated 15-2-1983 allowed the application and restored the original application to the file. Ext. P2 is the copy of an application filed by the petitioners before the Kerala Land Board, Trivandrum, purporting to be under S.101(2)(d) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (the Act) for setting aside Ext. P1 order and transferring the proceedings in O.A. No. 1482 of 1977 to another Land Tribunal in Badagara Taluk, Kozhikode District. Ext. P3 is the copy of the order dated 8-6-1983 by which the Kerala Land Board dismissed Ext. P2 application. It is aggrieved by Exts. P1 and P3 orders of the Land Tribunal and the Land Board respectively, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The point stressed before me by Sri Siby Mathew, the counsel for the petitioners, is that Ext. P1 order restoring the original application which was dismissed for default was without jurisdiction, in asmuchas the specifically enumerated powers conferred on the Land Tribunal under S.101 of the Act do not include the power to restore an original application dismissed for default. Reliance was placed by Sri Siby Mathew on the decision of Gopalan Nambiyar J., (as he then was) in Kuttappan v. Thressia ( 1973 KLT 521 ) in which it was held:

(3.) Sri Siby Mathew also drew my attention to the decision of Chandrasekhara Menon J., in Vamakshy v. Executive Officer, Ochira Panchayat ( 1982 KLT 185 ). In that decision it was observed: