VISWANATHAN Vs. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST respondent in T.R.T. Appeal No.28 of 1996, on the file of the Revenue Court, Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Appellate Authority (Special Deputy Collector), at Thanjavur, is the petitioner herein.

(2.) PETITIONER herein filed an application for registering his name as cultivating tenant. The Registering Authority registered his name. An appeal was taken by respondents therein. Along with the appeal, they also moved an application for stay of operation of the order. By the impugned Order, the Appellate Authority stayed the operation. The same is challenged in this revision under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that The Appellate Authority has no power to grant stay.

(3.) UNDER the Kerala Forest Act, a right of appeal is provided for any person aggrieved by the Order of the Forest Officer. But there was no specific power given to the Appellate Authority to grant stay. In Dy. Conservator of Forests v. K.S. Sarojini A.I.R. 1981 Ker. 44 after quoting the relevant passage in Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K.Mohammed Kunhi, A.I.R. 1969 S. C. 430, the learned Judge of the Kerala High Court has further quoted from the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to the power to grant stay. The relevant portion reads thus: "In regard to the power to grant stay the Supreme Court refers to the decision in Polini v. Gray, (1879)12 Ch.D. 438 where. "It appears to me on principle that the Court ought to possess that jurisdiction, because the principle which underlies all orders for preservation of property pending litigation is this, that the successful party is to reap the fruits of that litigation, and not obtain merely barren success. That principle, as it appears to me, applies as much to the court of first instance before the first trial, and to the court of appeal before the second trial, as to the court of last instance before the hearing of the final appeal." Justice Grover speaking for the Supreme Court has also quoted Domat's Civil Law, Cushing's Edition, Volume 1 at page 88 where has it has been stated: "It is the duty of the Judges to apply the laws, not only to what appears to be regulated by their express dispositions but to all the cases where a just application them may be made, and which appear to be comprehended either within the consequences that may be garnered from it." In this case, a general power of appeal is given. There is no provision prohibiting the exercise of any power provided under the Act which is normally exercised by an Appellate Authority. While exercising the appellate power, naturally, the Appellate Authority for the effective implementation of its power, may have to stay the operation of the order. That power is inherent, unless the Statute expressly prohibits that power; it is settled law that every tribunal will have the incidental power while exercising the jurisdiction conferred on it by the Statute.