THANKAPPAN Vs. KAIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the applicant No. 1 (the tenant) in a suo motu case taken by the Land Tribunal, Alleppey under S.72C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The tenancy arrangement was not disputed and the only question that arose before the Tribunal related to the amount of compensation payable by the revision petitioner and his cotenants to the respondent. A report of the revenue inspector was called for and he has filed a report fixing fair rent at 1/8th of the normal produce of the scheduled nilam. But the Land Tribunal, according to the petitioner, did not take that into account and has fixed the compensation based on an alleged agreement and also on the fair rent of other properties of the neighbouring jenmies. The appellate authority did not interfere with this decision in appeal. The appellate authority discarded the revenue inspector's report as not reasonable.

(2.) A preliminary objection is taken to this revision petition on the ground that it is not maintainable. The order directed the purchase of the landlord's rights and directed deposit of the compensation amount under the following terms:

(3.) In reply to this contention Shri Sadananda Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would urge that under the provisions of O.41 R.4 (which provision could be applied to revisions also) though Only one of the tenants had filed the revision, in case the revisional court accepts the contention of the petitioner it could reverse or vary the order in favour of all the tenants as the case may be. That O.41 R.4 could be made applicable to revision cannot be disputed as pointed out in Abdul Gafoor v. Wahidan Bibi (AIR 1966 Patna 173):