JOHN MENDEZ Vs. K. P. MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner filed OA 589 of 1980 before the Land Tribunal, Vypeen under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for purchase of kudikidappu rights. The original application was filed with the present respondent on the party array. Thereafter IA 308 of 1982 was filed before the Land Tribunal praying that, notices may be issued to two other persons who have got interest in the land. The Land Tribunal rejected the application and refused to send notice to these two persons. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under S.102 of the KLR Act. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal stating that the appeal is not maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by the Land Tribunal. The present revision is directed against the judgment in the appeal.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that the Land Tribunal was bound to issue notice to the two persons who have interest in the land sought to be purchased by the kudikidappukaran. Sub-s.(3) of S.80B says that the "Land Tribunal shall after giving, notice to the kudikidappukars in the land in which the kudikidappu is situate and other persons interested in the land and after such enquiry as may be prescribed, pass such order on the application as it thinks fit". (emphasis supplied). Therefore, it is char that the Land Tribunal should have issued notice to the persons interested in the land especially when the petitioner moved the Land Tribunal by a separate application requesting to issue notice to the interested persons. R.92(3) of the Tenancy Rules empowers the Land Tribunal to implead additional parties as party to the proceedings. The order passed by the Land Tribunal dismissing the interlocutory application is not sustainable.

(3.) I am fortified in my view by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Mathevankochu v. Madhavan (1979 KLT 316). There the petitioner filed an application under S.72F(4) to get himself impleaded in the proceedings under S.72F alleging that he is an interested person. That application was dismissed and this Court held that the order refusing or rejecting an application filed under sub-s.(4) of S.72F of the K. L. R. Act by a person interested in the land is not in the nature of an interlocutory order and is certainly an order which affects the right, title and interest of the persons and the object of S.102 is only to confer a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by an order which affects his right or liability.