SUKUMARA PILLAI Vs. VELAYUDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision was referred to a Full Bench for decision on the legality of the order of the Appellate Authority (Land reforms), Alleppey, condoning the delay in making the requisite deposit under sub-section (3) of S. 13a of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, for short'the Act'.

(2.) THE facts of the case are not in dispute. THE petitioner obtained a decree against the 1st respondent in OS. No. 734 of 1967 of the Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara for redemption of a mortgage and for recovery of possession of the suit property. In execution of the decree the petitioner got delivery of the property on 31-1-1969. After the commencement of the Kerala land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 35 of 1969, the 1st respondent applied as per o. A. No. 152 of 1970 to the Land Tribunal, Quilon for restoration of possession of the property delivered to the petitioner on 13-1-1969 alleging that he is a deemed tenant under S. 4a (1) (a) of the Land Reforms Act as amended and is hence entitled to restoration of possession of the holding under S. 13a of the act. THE Land Tribunal as per its order dated 20-6-1972 allowed restoration on condition that the 1st respondent deposits compensation fixed at Rs. 1, 834. 31 for payment to the petitioner-decreeholder within one month from the date of the order. THE petitioner filed O. P. No. 3047 of 1972 before this Court against the order of the Land Tribunal and obtained a stay of all further proceedings on 27-6-1972. THE O. P. itself was dismissed on 30-8-1972 for the reason of the pendency of an appeal by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority (Land reforms), Alleppey. THE appeal A A. 1153 of 1972 was filed on 2-8-1972. THE appellate Authority passed an order of stay of all further proceedings on 16-8-1972 and ultimately dismissed the appeal itself on 2-6-1973. THE Ist respondent had failed to comply with the direction of the Land Tribunal to deposit the compensation due to the petitioner within one month from the date of the Tribunal's order on 20-6-1972. An application, I. A. No. 62 of 1973. was filed before the Land Tribunal on 13-7-1973 for extension of time to deposit the amount. THE amount was deposited only on 17-7-1973, one month and 15 days after the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal. THE Land tribunal on 27-12-1973 allowed IA. No. 62 of 1973 and condoned the delay in depositing the amount. THE petitioner filed AA. No. 382 of 1974 before the Appellate authority against the order of the Land Tribunal in IA. No. 62 of 1973. THE appellate Authority on 28-5-1977 allowed the appeal and dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the time fixed for deposit under sub-s. (3) of S. 13a of the Act THEreafter on 28-6-1977 the Ist respondent as per IA. No. 927 of 1977 applied to the Appellate Authority for condonation of delay in making the deposit. THE Appellate Authority as per its order dated 5-1-1978 has condoned the delay enabling the 1st respondent to obtain restoration of the property in terms of the order of the Land Tribunal dated 20-6-1972 It is against this order of the Appellate Authority that the petitioner has filed the Civil revision Petition.

(3.) TRIBUNAL dated 20-6-1972 allowing restoration of possession of the land on condition of deposit of Rs. 1834. 31 within one month of the order was an illegal order that became impossible of performance for the default of the 1st respondent in making the requisite deposit within the time specified in the order The effect of extending the time and condoning the delay is to revive and give effect to an illegal order passed by a statutory tribunal. Even assuming (without deciding) that the Appellate Authority has jurisdiction to extend the period of deposit required to be made under subsection (3) of S. 13a of the Act, such jurisdiction will not be exercised to perpetuate an illegal order that has worked itself out. The jurisdiction to condone delay and to extend time is purely discretionary and the discretion will not be exercised to promote an illegality. In the decision of the Supreme court in Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1966 SC 828) it is stated as follows: " (7) The result of the discussion may be stated thus: The Primary Health Centre was not permanently located at Dharmajiguden. The representatives of the said village did not comply with the necessary conditions for such location. The Panchayat Samithi finally cancelled its earlier resolutions which they were entitled to do and passed a resolution for locating the Primary Health Centre permanently at Lingapalem. Both the orders of the Government namely the order dated March 7,1962, and that dated April 18. 1963, were not legally passed: the former, because it was made without giving notice to the Panchayat Samithi, and the latter, because the Government had no power under S. 72 of the Act to review an order made under S 62 of the act and also because it did not give notice to the representatives of dharmajiguden village. In those circumstances, was it a case for the High Court to interfere in its discretion and quash the order of the Government dated april 18,1963? If the High Court had quashed the said order, it would have restored an illegal order it would have given the Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samithi. The High Court, therefore, in our view, rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary discretionary power in the circumstances of the case. " The same principle is followed in the decision in The hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. G K. Patankar and another (1976 (1) SCC 810 ). For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order of the appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Alleppey, condoning the delay in compliance to the order of the Land TRIBUNAL dated 20-6-1972 is unsustainable and it is accordingly set aside. I. A. No. 927 of 1977 filed by the 1st respondent before the Appellate Authority is dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. . .