IMPORTANT POINTS
1. An order of Appellate Authority remanding the case to the Land Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law is a final order within the meaning of Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and as such against such an order revision would lie.
2. The power of revision vested in the High Court u/s 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is wide and it is not limited only to question of law or jurisdiction.

Headnote:(i) Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 -Section 103 r/w Section 80B-Revision-Final order-Meaning of-An order of remand to Land Board by Appellate Authority for disposal in accordance with law is final order-Revision thereagainst is maintainable-Appellate Authority giving a finding that appellant was Kudikidappukaran remanded case to Land Board to grant Kudikidappu right in light of direction in appellate order-Held, order of Appellate Authority was final order and revision thereagainst could have been filed.
       Held : The Kerala High Court in certain decisions has taken the view that only an order which disposes of a proceeding before the Land Board, can be said to be a final order and against such an order a revision petition shall lie; any other order of the appellate authority which does not dispose of the proceeding before the Land Board cannot be said to be a final order and no other revision petition shall lie against such an order. This interpretation, in our considered view, does not flow from the language of the statutory provision. Clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 103 provides that any final order passed in an appeal is available to be challenged in revision by any person aggrieved by such order. The clear and unambiguous language in which the section is couched conveys the meaning that a revision petition cannot be filed against an interlocutory order passed in an appeal. To put it differently, an order which does not dispose of the appeal is not a final order . An order of remand in which the matter is remanded to the Land Board for disposal in accordance with law cannot be said to be an interlocutory order for the simple reason that the appeal filed before the Land Tribunal stands disposed of by such order. In a case where the Land Tribunal keeps the proceeding pending and calls for a finding on a specific issue or point formulated by it from the Land Board or any other Authority, then such an order cannot be said to be a final order against which a revision can be filed before the High Court. (Para 10)
       Held further : We make it clear that our decision to reverse the finding on the maintainability of the revision petition and overruling the contra view taken by the Kerala High Court, for the reasons set forth in this Judgment, will have only prospective effect. Any proceeding under the Act which has been concluded and finally disposed of by the Tribunal, High Court or any other competent authority relying on the decisions of the Kerala High Court on the point will not be re-opened on the basis of the decision rendered by us. (Para 14)
       In the instant case, the Appellate Authority giving a finding that the appellant was a Kudikidappukaran remanded the case to the Land Tribunal to grant Kudikidappu right to the appellant. The land owner did not file any revision against that order. After the Land Tribunal passed order granting certificate of purchase to the Kudikidappukaran in proceedings after remand, the land owner filed revision against the order of the Tribunal. The Kudikidappukaran raised objection to the maintainability of the revision petition which was overruled by the High Court.
       Held : That the finding of the High Court in the impugned order that no revision petition could be filed against the order of remand passed by the Land Tribunal is erroneous. (Para 10)
       (ii) Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963-Sections 80A and 80B r/w Section 103-Kudikidappukaran-Entitlement to purchase Kudikidappu right-Shop room let out to appellant-He constructed a Charthu-Land Tribunal decided case in favour of appellant tenant taking note of only one factor that there was a distance of about 3/4 kole between two structures-Findings of High Court that structure in question not an independent structure and only an adjunct or appurtenance to shop room-High Court holding that appellant was not Kudikidappukaran-High Courts order cannot be faulted either in fact or in law.
       Held : In Section 103(3), suo motu power is vested in the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Land Tribunal under Section 26 in cases where the amount of arrears of rent claimed does not exceed five hundred rupees was according to law, call for the records and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. From the aforenoted statutory provisions, it is manifest that the power of revision vested in the High Court is wide and it is not limited only to question of law or jurisdiction. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the revisional power to disturb findings of fact or law recorded by the Land Tribunal or Land Board of Taluk Land Board as the case may be, only in appropriate cases in which the Court is satisfied that such interference is necessary in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication of the dispute raised by the parties. (Para 13)
       The High Court, as the impugned order shows, has taken note of exception to the order of the Land Tribunal on the ground that it failed to take note of relevant factors like the facts and circumstances under which the structure was allowed to be constructed; whether it was free or subject to payment of rent, the existence of similar structures erected by the other tenant in the building and whether the structure with respect to which kudikidappu was claimed was really a part of the building which was let out to the appellant or it was an independent or separate structure. The High Court has further observed that the Land Tribunal decided the case in favour of the appellant taking note of only one factor, that there is a distance of about 3/4 kole between the two structures. The High Court has also found that, even though the building was referred to as a shop building (originally), the appellant herein was residing in that while running his motor pump repair business in a portion, even before constructing the lean-to or charthu in question. On the basis of such facts and circumstances appearing from the evidence on record, the High Court came to the finding that the structure with respect to which kudikidappu is claimed is not an independent structure; it is only an adjunct or appurtenant to the shop room previously let out to the appellant. The facts and circumstances noted in the impugned judgment are relevant and germane for the purpose of determining the question whether the appellant s claim that he is a kudikidappukaran with respect to the structure in question and as such entitled to purchase the property. The High Court cannot be faulted either in fact or in law for having held that the appellant is not a kudikidappukaran with respect to the structure in question. (Para 13)
       (iii) Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963-Section 103-Revision-Scope of powers of High Court-Power is wide and it is not limited only to question of law or jurisdiction (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Mohapatra, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Kerala dated 29th November, 1996 in CRP No. 2495 of 1989. The said revision petition was filed by the respondent herein under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) challenging the Judgment dated 31.1.1989 of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Thrissur in AA No. 93/88. The High Court having allowed the revision petition on the finding that the respondent therein is not a Kudikidappukaran with respect to the structure in question. The respondent in the revision petition has filed this appeal.

2. The relevant facts necessary for appreciating the controversy may be stated thus:

The respondent Hari Mohan owns an extent of 28.5 cents of property in Survey No. 683/3 of Lokamaleswaram Village. In that property there is a building with four sets of rooms originally constructed as shop rooms. The said four rooms were separately let out to four persons including the appellant. All the four tenants filed original applications before the Land Tribunal for purchase of Kudikidappu right under Section 80-B of the Act. The application filed by the appellant was registered as O.A. No. 180 of 1973. All the applications were dismissed by the Land Tribunal, Kodumgalloor. Excepting the appellant the other tenants did not pursue the matter further. The appellant filed A.A. No. 715/76 before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Trichur which was allowed holding that the appellant is a Kudikidappukaran entitled to purchase the kudikidappu. The said order was challenged by the respondent in C.R.P. 2718/77 which was allowed by the High Court by Order dated 25.4.1980; the order of the Appellate Authority was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh disposal with the following observations:

"For determining this question several factors will have to be taken into account-the distance between the building and the structure, the object for which and the circumstances under which the structure was allowed to be constructed, whether it was free or subject to the payment of rent, the existence of similar structures executed by the other tenants in the building, and other relevant circumstances. The Appellate Authority has not considered these various factors but has gone only by the distance of about 3/4 kole which separates the structure from the building. After hearing both sides I am of the view that this omission has vitiated the order. The Appellate Authority has therefore to be required to consider the matter again."

3. After the remand, the Appellate Authority passed an order in favour of the appellant. The relevant portion of the order reads:

"It is seen that it is a separate building which has no connection with the main building, as observed by the Appellate Authority earlier that there is about 3/4 kole distance between the structure and the building. It has also been stated that the applicant was permitted to reside with his family when his wife had to undergo treatment. It has been pointed out that rent was paid for the structure and that the rent paid for the main building included that of the charthu also. It is an admitted fact that the charthu has been constructed by the appellant. Therefore I do not find any reason to Therefore I do not find any reason to believe that it is not an independent hut. It was argued that the property in question lies within the local limits of Kodungallur Municipality. The Land Tribunal, will consider this question also when the area of Kudikidappu is fixed.

In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the Land Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the lower court for granting Kudikidappu right to the appellant in the light of the directions given above."

4. The above order was not challenged in revision. The Land Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to 10 cents of land as Kudikidappu and the certificate of p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document