Tribunals have the inherent power of review to correct procedural mistakes, but the power to review on the merits of the case should be conferred by the statute under which the Tribunal is constituted.

Headnote:
Review Petition - Land Tribunal Order - The court confirmed the decision of the Land Tribunal to reject the review application, stating that the Tribunal did not have the power to review an order already passed, especially on the merits of the case, unless conferred by the statute under which the Tribunal is constituted.
Fact of the Case:

The revision petitioner filed a review application for the order of the Land Tribunal rejecting his prayer for shifting the kudikidappu of the respondent to a corner of the plot. The review application was dismissed by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Land Tribunal did not have the power to review an order already passed, especially on the merits of the case, unless conferred by the statute under which the Tribunal is constituted. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed.
Issues: The issue was whether the Land Tribunal had the power to review an order already passed on the merits of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power of review to correct a procedural mistake is inherent in every Tribunal, but a power of review on the merits of the case should be one conferred by the statute under which the Tribunal is constituted.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Judgment :-

1. The revision petitioner filed an application I. A. No. 10 of 1977 for a review of the order of the Land Tribunal dated 6-7-1977 rejecting his prayer for shifting the kudikidappu of the respondent to a corner of the plot. The review application was dismissed on the ground that the Land Tribunal has no power to review an order already passed by it. This decision of the Land Tribunal is confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

2. The review sought for is on the merits of the case. What is sought for, is not a review in the nature of correction of a procedural mistake. Such power of review to correct a procedural mistake is inherent in every Tribunal But a power of review of the nature sought for in the present proceedings on the merits of the case should be one conferred by the statute under which the Tribunal is constituted. There is no such power of review conferred on the Land Tribunal by the Kerala Land Reforms Act or the rules made thereunder. The decision of the courts below is therefore perfectly correct and does not call for interference. The Civil Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs.

Dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1981 Supreme(Ker) 245

Judges : BALAKRISHNA MENONCHANDRASEKHARAN - AppellantVersusJENNAT - RespondentCase No : C. R. P. No. 1014 of 1980Decided On : 11/10/1981Advocates Appeared : K.P. Dandapani; Sumathy Dandapani; For Petitioner Joseph Franklin; Government Pleader; For Respondent

Tribunals have the inherent power of review to correct procedural mistakes, but the power to review on the merits of the case should be conferred by the statute under which the Tribunal is constituted.

Judicial Analysis

Judges : BALAKRISHNA MENON
CHANDRASEKHARAN - Appellant
Versus
JENNAT - Respondent
Case No : C. R. P. No. 1014 of 1980
Decided On : 11/10/1981
Advocates Appeared :
K.P. Dandapani; Sumathy Dandapani; For Petitioner Joseph Franklin; Government Pleader; For Respondent