OUSEPH CHACKO Vs. SARASWATHI ANTHERJ ANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition filed under S.103 clause (1) sub clause (i) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, arises out of an application for fixation of fair rent under S.16(1) of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (Act IV of 1961) in respect of 12 acres 36 cents of single crop paddy land. The revision petitioner before this Court is the tenant. Though his application was allowed and fair rent was fixed by the Land Tribunal, Ponkunnam, the learned Subordinate Judge in. appeal dismissed the application. The civil revision petition came up for disposal before a single Judge of this Court. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent questioned the competency of a single Judge to deal with a revision petition filed under S.103 clause (1) sub clause (i) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The civil revision petition was therefore directed to be placed before a division bench for disposal and also for decision on the question of the procedure to be followed by this Court in the matter of revision petitions arising under S.103 clause (1) sub clause (i) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

(2.) The power to deal with a revision petition arising under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, is not expressly conferred on a single Judge under S.3 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, though clause (4) of S.3 of the said Act confers on the single Judge the power to deal with revision petitions under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and S.22 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act, 1957. S.103(1)(i) of Act I of 1964 provides for a petition to the High Court to revise any final order passed in an appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal. S.102 of Act I of 1964 which gives the right of appeal against the orders passed by the Land Tribunal constitutes the Subordinate Judge competent to hear the appeal as persona designata. As such an order passed under S.102 of Act I of 1964 is not open to revision under S.115, CPC. Further the powers of revision under S.115, CPC. and S.103 of Kerala Act I of 1964 are different. S.4 clause (7) of the Kerala High Court Act provides that all matters not expressly provided for in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force have to be heard by a bench of two Judges. We therefore hold that revision petitions filed under S.103 clause (1) sub clause (i) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, can only be heard by a bench and a single Judge of this Court is not empowered to hear and dispose of such petitions. Since the High Court Act empowers a single Judge to deal with revision petitions arising under S.115 of the CPC and S.22 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act, 1957, it is for the authorities to amend the High Court Act so as to confer on a single Judge of this Court the power to hear and dispose of Civil Revision Petitions arising under all other enactments in the absence of any express provision to the contrary in those enactments.

(3.) The learned appellate Judge has dismissed the petition for fixation of fair rent on the ground that the respondent before us is a life interest holder and the tenant of such a life interest holder is exempted from the operation of the Act. The question whether the respondent has got only a life interest in the property or has got an absolute interest has not been considered on the merits by the learned appellate Judge. Both sides agreed that the order of the appellate Judge is quite unsatisfactory and the case has to be remanded to the appellate court for fresh consideration. We therefore set aside the decision of the appellate Judge and send back the case to that court for fresh disposal. There will be no order as to costs in this court.