S C VENKATAPATHI RAJU Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER AND THE ADDL REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER LAID REFORMS TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideratioa in this revision petition is whether an order pronounced in an appeal by the Chairman can be deemed to have been the order of the Tribunal even though the other . member of the Tribunal ceased to be as such by the date on which the order was pronounced. This question arises under the following circumstances : -

(2.) The Appellate Tribunal of Visakhapatnam consists of its Chairman as well as the other member from the Revenue Department as required under section 20 (2) of the Land Ceiling Act. This Tribunal heard L. R. A No. 864 of 1977 and the matter was reserved for judgment. Ultimately the Chairman pronounced the judgment on 21st March, 1978 by which time the member of the Tribunal had left for assuming charge as Project Officer of S. E. D. A., Hyderabad and he ceased to be the member of the Tribunal on that date. The Chairman in his judgment has also mentioned this aspect. However, some relief was given to the declarant and the appeal was allowed in part. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the declarant has preferred this revision.

(3.) Sri M. Adinarayana Raju, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset contends that the order under revision is an illegal one inasmuch as this was not rendered by the Tribunal which heard the appeal and the Chairman has no power to pronounce the judgment on behalf of the Tribunal when the member has ceased to be so.