BANARI MOOSA KUNHI Vs. ASMABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant claiming to be a tenant under the first respondent moved the Land Tribunal for taking suo motu action under S.72C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for assignment of the right, title and interest of the holding in his favour. The authority by its order dated 26-6-1979 held that this is not a fit case for initiating suo motu proceedings. An appeal was, therefore, filed purporting to be under S.102 of the Land Reforms Act. The Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Land Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal did not consider the merits of the case regarding the tenancy claimed by the appellant. The matter was thus remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. This order was challenged by the first respondent in a writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. A learned Judge of this court has held that no appeal would lie against the order passed by the Land Tribunal and, therefore, quashed the order of the Appellate Authority. Against this Judgment, this appeal is filed.

(2.) It has to be borne in mind that a person claiming to be a tenant can file an application under S.72B(3) of the Land Reforms Act for assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of a holding within two years from the date of vesting of such right, title and interest in the Government under S.72, or such further time as may be allowed by the Government in this behalf. It is admitted before us that the time for filing an application under S.72B(3) expired in 1976. The appellant did not file any such application within the time so prescribed. But in 1978, he moved the Land Tribunal for initiating suo motu action as contemplated under S.72C of the Act, which reads thus:

(3.) S.72F provides for the procedure and the determination of the compensation and purchase price in respect of the holding to be assigned. The appeal is provided under S.120 of the Act. One of us (Radhakrishna Menon, J.) has held in Bhaskaran v. Aisabi ( 1987 (2) KLT 213 ) that even when suo motu proceedings are taken under S.72C and an order is pasted therein, it is an order passed under S.72F and, therefore, an appeal lies under S.102. The counsel for the first respondent submitted that the said decision has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case, for, there is no decision on the merits by the Land Tribunal, as to whether the appellant is a tenant or not, and the Land Tribunal merely refused to exercise its suo motu jurisdiction. The refusal to exercise suo motu jurisdiction, according to counsel is not an order passed under S.72F and therefore, no appeal will lie under S.102.