SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1973 Supreme(Ker) 41

Judges : V.P.GOPALAN NAMBIYAR
RAVI KALYANI AMMA - Appellant
Versus
THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KANJIKUZHY - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 1367 of 1972
Decided On : 02/12/1973
Advocates Appeared :
V. N. Swaminathan; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For Respondent

The power of the Land Tribunal to review its own order cannot be exercised without notice to the affected party.

Headnote:

Land Tribunal - Review of Own Order - The court held that the power of the Land Tribunal to review its own order cannot be exercised without notice to the affected party. The court quashed the order and directed the Land Tribunal to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with the law.

Fact of the Case:

The Land Tribunal reviewed its prior order without notice to the affected party, the petitioner, and excused the delay in filing the review petition without notice.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Land Tribunal was wrong in excusing the delay in filing the review petition without notice to the petitioner. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order, and directed the Land Tribunal to dispose of the matter afresh.

Issues: The issues were whether the Land Tribunal had the power to review its own order and whether such power could be exercised without notice to the affected party.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power of the Land Tribunal to review its own order cannot be exercised without notice to the party aggrieved.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order, and directed the Land Tribunal to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with the law.

Judgment :-

1. This writ petition raises the question as to whether a Land Tribunal constituted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act (Act I of 1964) has got the power of reviewing its own order; and if so, whether the said power can be exercised without notice to the party affected by the order. I do not propose to decide the first of these questions, as this case can safely be disposed of on the second. The order impugned in this case is Ext. P3 dated 15th February 1972, by which the Land Tribunal reviewed its prior order dated 31-10-1970 passed under S.80-B of the Land Reforms Act, dismissing the 2nd Respondent's application to purchase the kudikidappu rights. Subsequently, on an application filed for review of the said order, the Land Tribunal passed Ext. P3 order, condoning the delay in submitting the review petition, allowing the application for review, and posting the case for filing written statement. The petitioner has alleged that be had no notice at all either of the application for review or of the application to excuse delay in filing the same. I am clear that, whether there was power at all in the Land Tribunal to review its own order, the said power cannot certainly be exercised without notice to the party aggrieved, who in this case is the petitioner. I notice that there was no separate application to excuse delay in filing the review petition. The Land Tribunal was wrong again in excusing the delay is filing the review petition without notice to the petitioner herein. On these grounds, I allow this writ petition and quash Ex. P3 and direct the Land Tribunal to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment.

2. The Land Tribunal will, if an application to excuse delay in filing the review petition be filed, give notice of the same in the first instance to the petitioner herein and deal with it in accordance with law. If delay were to be excused, the Tribunal will then proceed to deal with the application for review,- again after notice of the same to the petitioner. In so dealing with the application for review, it will be open to the petitioner herein to urge the contention that the Land Tribunal has no power to review at all.

3. The O. P. is allowed as above and Ext. P3 order is quashed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top