VARKEY Vs. KURIAKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this case is to Ext. P1 order and it is on the ground that the Land Tribunal was incompetent to pass an order appointing a Receiver pending disposal of an application under S.72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for purchase of the landlord's rights. That a Land Tribunal has, under such circumstances, no power to issue an injunction has been held by this Court in Parameswaran Pillai v. Krishna Pillai, 1973 KLT 53 . The power of the Land Tribunal to pass interlocutory orders is noticed as that contained in R.92 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules. Though there is a power to grant injunction under that rule, since orders passed under that rule should be for implementing the provisions of the Act and the Rules and not for any other purpose, an order that does not satisfy that requirement will be one passed without jurisdiction. Reference was made in that context to the earlier decisions of this Court reported in Gopalakrishnan Nair v. Land Tribunal, Chengannur, 1967 KLT 184 and Alavi v. Appellate Authority, Land Reforms, 1972 KLT 648 The question in Parameswaran Pillai v. Krishna Pillai, 1973 KLT 53 was whether the petitioner was a tenant entitled to apply under S.72B for assignment of the jenmi's right in his favour. It was found that for determination of this question an order of injunction need not be passed and if one is passed, it will not be possible to bring it within the scope of R.92(1) as an order implementing the provisions of the Act and the Rules The same could be said of an order appointing a Receiver. During the pendency of an application for purchase of the landlord's rights any order of appointment of a Receiver cannot be for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Act and the Rules, and therefore, any such order would be extraneous to R.92(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules. If that be the case, the order would be without jurisdiction as held in the decisions adverted to. In the circumstances Ext P1 order, in so far as it directs the appointment of a Receiver, is unsustainable. I quash the said order. No costs.