(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition claims to be a 'cultivating tenant' in respect of five acres of land. He filed an application O. A. No 240/71 before the Land Tribunal for assignment of jenmom rights under S.72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'). That application was dismissed on the ground that respondents 1 and 2 had already obtained purchase certificate in respect of the very same land. As against the said order of the Land Tribunal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the third respondent under S.102 of the Act. That appeal happened to be dismissed on the ground of a submission made by the petitioner's counsel to the effect that appeal was not pressed. Ext. P1 is the copy of the judgment. Since the submission made before the Appellate Authority was due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel, the petitioner prepared a review petition and attempted to file it before the Appellate Authority. Ext. P2 is the copy of the said review petition. However that petition was not entertained by the office and it was returned without assigning any reason. It was in that situation the present writ petition was filed. (The original of the review petition along with the Vakalath of the advocate was separately produced in this original petition).
(2.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4. Though the notice was taken out to respondents 1 and 2, there was no appearance on behalf of them.
(3.) The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the Appellate Authority has ample power to review its own order or correct an inadvertent mistaken submission. Argument is that manifest injustice would be caused to the petitioner in case Ext. P1 judgment is not allowed to be corrected as prayed for. He further pleads that the provisions of the Act do not authorise the Appellate Authority to review its own order and therefore the remedy under Art.226 and 227 alone is available.