AMBROSE J SARASAM Vs. JOHN DANIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaint A schedule property is S. No. 104/2b of Karumkulam Village, 12 acres 19 cents in extent. THE plaintiffs claim to be interested in plaint B schedule property, 2 acres 51 cents in extent, being a portion of the A schedule property. In regard to the A schedule property the plaintiffs as well as the defendants are shown in the land Records as undivided sharers (Oodukur-holders ). THE Travancore Oodukur settlement Proclamation, 1122 (hereinafter called the Proclamation), aiming to do away with the recognition of fractional shares in the Land Records, directs the Oodukur Settlement Officer to divide the holdings in specific plots between the Oodukur pattadars or their representatives, and, if that be not possible for want of pleadings, to record them as joint holders of the land concerned. A proceeding under the Proclamation was taken in respect of the plaint A schedule property and an order, copy of which is Ext. P-13, has been passed by the oodukur Settlement Officer. That order reads: - "proceedings of the Oodukur Settlement Officer, kuzhithura. O. S. Case No. 385 of Karumkulam Village, Neyyattinkara taluk. S. No. 104/2b -12 acres 19 cents. Read: Report No. O. S. 2. 1136/53 dated 13-1-55 and the connected records of the case received from the Settlement Party Officer, neyyattinkara. Order thereon R. Dis. No. 3659/53 dated 4-2-55. In the circumstances stated in the report read above, an award will be passed under S. 24 of the Oodukur Settlement Proclamation settling the holding which has been sub-divided among the share-holders under S. 19. Compensation to be paid is shown in the Award. Apprehending that the mention of a particular area as against particular names in this order amounts to an award under S. 24 of the proclamation, the plaintiffs have instituted this suit to set aside the award and to have their title and possession declared in regard to the plaint B schedule property. It is averred by the plaintiffs that about 24 cents of land out of the plaint B schedule property have been settled in favour of the 1st defendant; and the defendants claim that it has been so awarded. THE Courts below have found such award wrongful and have decreed the suit. Hence this second appeal by the 1st defendant.

(2.) THE 1st plaintiff is P. John Daniel. THE names of plaintiffs 2 to 4 do not find any mention in the order of the Oodukur Settlement Officer, quoted above. THE order does not allot or settle any area to the 1st plaintiff, or to the plaintiffs. In fact, the order contains no settlement of lands on any sharer. All that it says is "an award will be passed under S. 24 of the proclamation". That Section directs: "at the close of the settlement enquiry in respect of each Oodukur holding the Settlement Officer shall pass an award settling the holding among the various shareholders. . . ". In my view, Ext. P-13 is no award as contemplated in S. 24 of the Proclamation as it does not make a settlement of the holding among its sharers. To say that an award will be passed is not to pass an award thereby. Apart from the language, it fails in its contents also. An award under S. 24 of the Proclamation must express a settlement of the holding among the various share-holders thereof. It is a quasi-judicial decision determining the rights of parties in respect of their property. A finding in regard to the interests of the several claimants is therefore an essential part of the award; and being a quasi-judicial decision subject to an appeal to the Civil Court it should also give the reasons that led the officer to his conclusions. "s. 9 of the Act has laid down a regular hierarchy of authorities, one above the other, with the right of hearing appeals or revisions. Though the Act and the rules do not, in express terms, require reasoned orders to be recorded, yet, in the context of the subject-matter of the rules, it becomes necessary for the several authorities to pass what are called 'speaking orders' ". (Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner, AIR. 1958 sc. 398, Para. 9.) Under S. 29 of the Proclamation the award passed by the oodukur Settlement Officer shall be final and binding on all the shareholders unless cancelled or modified by a decree of Civil Court. What is contemplated in S. 29 of the Proclamation is not a declaration of the respective rights of the parties but a cancellation or modification of the award by the Civil court. Referring to a suit contemplated in 0. 21 R. 63 CPC. Sadasiva Iyer, J. has observed in Krishnappa Chetty v. Abdul Khader Sahib (38 Mad. 535): ". . . suits of this class, though called original suits, are not in their essence original actions, but merely forms of appeal allowed by the Civil Procedure Code to be brought in the guise of original suits. Though the Court in which this appellate action might be brought may be sometimes a Court which ordinarily is inferior to the Court by which the summary order was passed and though fresh evidence not adduced during the summary enquiry may be adduced by both sides in that appellate action, the suit is in essence, in the words of their Lordships of the Privy Council 'a form of appeal', and hence it is not unrelated to the original claim proceedings and it is therefore, in essence, an appeal. and those observations have been cited with approval by this Court in Thycattuseri Church v. Sicillyamma (1962 KLT. 955 F. B. ). THE suit contemplated in S. 29 of the Proclamation is therefore a form of appeal against the award of the Oodukur Settlement Officer. Laconic proceedings which do not contain even the determination of the question concerned - not to say of the requirements of an appealable order - cannot be regarded as an order of a quasi-judicial tribunal. Reckoned as an award, Ext. P-13, which does not satisfy the requirements of law, is a nullity and is hereby declared so.