MAHADEVA IYER Vs. BHAGAVATHY AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In respect of certain properties belonging to the Anchal Brahmana Samooham suo motu proceedings for assignment of right, title and interest of the Samooham were taken by the Land Tribunal on the basis of a report filed by the Village Officer and the Revenue Inspector. SMP. 107 of 1974 was taken in respect of 71 cents of dry land in Sy. No. 89/6, Anchal Village. SMP. 109 of 1974 was taken in respect of 1 acre and 6 cents of wet land and 21 cents of Panappurayidom in Sy. No, 48/2A, 2B. 442/1 and 38/13C of the same Village. SMP. 67/75 was taken in respect of 54 cents of double crop land in Sy. No. 552/1 AB, Arakkal Village and SMP. 68/75 was taken in respect of 80 cents of double crop wet land in Sy. No. 552/1A and 553/7 of the same Village. The Land Tribunal after enquiry found that the occupants of the above lands are not tenants within the meaning of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and therefore refused to order assignment of the lands to them. A. A. No. 333 of 1976 was filed against the order in SMP. 107/74, A. A. 263 of 1975 was filed against SMP. 109 of 1974, A. A. 697 of 1975 was filed against the decision in SMP. 67/75 and A. A. No. 961/75 was filed against the decision in SMP. 68/75. All the four appeals were heard together by the Appellate Authority and all of them were allowed. The appellants were found to be tenants entitled to fixity and assignment. For implementing this conclusion by fixing the purchase price and passing a formal order allowing purchase the cases are directed to be sent back to the Land Tribunal. It is against this that these four revision petitions are filed.

(2.) A preliminary objection is raised by the respondents' counsel against the maintainability of these revision petitions. According to him the orders challenged in these revision petitions are not final orders within the meaning of S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Appellate Authority has not finally disposed of the Land Tribunal Proceedings, but only remanded the matter after adjudicating on certain issues that arose for decision. Such an order, it is said, is not a final order within the meaning of S.103 of the Act According to me S.103 does not warrant such an interpretation. That section reads as follows:

(3.) But in this case it is not necessary to go against the interpretation adopted in the above case and hence I am not adjourning the case for decision by a larger Bench. As per the interpretation put on S.103 in the above decision the order in appeal should finally dispose of the rights of parties and the finality should be determined in relation to the proceeding initiated before the Land Tribunal. That test is satisfied by the order under challenge. The Appellate Authority has found that the appellants are tenants. They are also found entitled to fixity and to an assignment of the landlord's rights. By the order the matter is sent back to the Land Tribunal only for implementing the rights adjudicated upon and what remains to be done is more or less mechanical. There remains only the calculation of the purchase price applying the formula given in the Act and to pass a formal order specifying the details given in S.72F of the Act. This does not make the order under challenge any the less final in the sense of final disposal of the rights of the parties in relation to the proceeding I am supported in this approach by the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee v. Shiv Rattan Dev (AIR 1955 SC 576) followed by Subba Rao C. J. in Venkayya v. P. Venkatarama Rao (AIR 1956 Andhra 126) and in Savitri Devi v. Rajul Devi (AIR 1961 All. 245) and Shatrunji v. Azmat Azim Khan (AIR 1967 All. 51 (F.B.) ). In Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee v. Shiv Rattan Dev (1955 SC 576) the appeal before the Supreme Court was directed against an order of remand. The preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal is dealt with as follows: