GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL CHENGANNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration in this case is whether the Land Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass the order in question (Ext. P1). Petitioner filed an application under S.31 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act I of 1964) for fixation of fair rent. He also filed a petition for restraining the respondents from entering into possession of item No. 6 of the properties scheduled to his petition. Respondents I to 3 filed a petition praying that the petitioner may be restrained by an injunction from entering into item No. 6. The Land Tribunal after considering these petitions passed an order finding that the petitioner has not succeeded in proving a prima facie case of possession and therefore the respondents "will continue to be in possession of the item on depositing an amount of Rs. 200, as security amount for their being allowed to be in possession and enjoyment of the item, failing which further appropriate orders will be passed on the petitions". About the possession and the status of the petitioner, so far as items 1 to 5 are concerned there is no dispute. As regards item No. 6 it was contended by respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioner is not a tenant.

(2.) It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the order under R.60, of the rules framed under the Act. R.60 provides:

(3.) Petitioner's counsel brought to my attention the decision in O. P. No 3094 of 1965 by Raman Nayar, J. holding that Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant an injunction at the instance of a tenant, who had filed an application for fixation of fair rent. I think the reasoning of the learned Judge will apply to this case also.