THRESSIA Vs. THANKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner sought impleadment in an application made by the first respondent, O.A. 32 of 1986 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Vypeen. The prayer was rejected by Ext. P2, notwithstanding the fact that petitioner's interest in the property had been found by a civil court in Ext. P1.

(2.) Land Tribunal declined impleadment on the basis of a decision of a learned Judge of this court in Ponnu v. Lakshmanan ( 1981 KLT 881 ). The Tribunal read the decision to understand that in the absence of a provision enabling impleadment a third party could not be impleaded. I do not think that the decision cited yields any such inference. The learned Judge was dealing with a case where impleadment was sought after conclusion of proceedings. The rule in the decision must be limited to situations akin to those considered therein. S.80B(3) itself gives clear indication that notice could be issued to those 'interested in the Land'. It means at once, that those with an interest in the land have a right to be heard in proceedings touching upon interest in such land. Not different is the indication in S.105 of the Act and R.141 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1961. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to addition of parties apply to proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

(3.) Apart from that, it is well settled that even in the absence of a provision to implead a party to proceedings, principles of natural justice require that a Tribunal or adjudicating authority must hear any person likely to be affected by the decision in the proceeding. A power to do justice between parties inheres in every Tribunal. It has been a cherished principle atleast in all, English speaking countries that hearing before deciding, is a prelude and attribute to fair procedure. This concept has gained shades and significance with time. The right of a man to be heard in his defence is the most elementary protection. The principles of Audi Alteram Partem has received recognition in every form of adjudicatory process. The hands of time has chiseled, honed and refined this principle and judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to it, like polishing to diamond. The decision of this court in Stella v. M.A.C.T. ( 1988 (2) KLT 13 ) has taken such a view. This is consistent with the view taken in Dhani Devi v. S.B. Sharma ( AIR 1970 SC 759 ).