The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Land Tribunal did not have the power to extend the time for making the deposit as the period was fixed by the statute itself, and the order of resumption would stand automatically cancelled if the amount was not deposited within the prescribed time.

1. The petitioner in this revision petition under S.103 of the Land Reforms Act (Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969) is the petitioner in O. A. No. 138 of 1966 on the file of the Land Tribunal (Munsiff) of Kozhikode. The respondent is the respondent in the said proceedings before the Land Tribunal.

2. In order to appreciate the scope of the contentions raised in this revision petition, it is necessary to narrate briefly the facts of the case which are as follows: The petitioner filed O. A. No. 138/66 under S.15 of Act 1 of 1964 for resuming the land held by the respondent as tenant under her. The respondent contested the matter, but without success. On 1712 1966 the order for resumption was passed. An appeal, A. A/Kozhikode/15/70 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kozhikode (which was originally filed as C. M. A. 9/67 in the Sub Court, Badagara) filed by the respondent, was dismissed on 21 111970. It is also represented that revision filed by the respondent against the judgment of the appellate authority was dismissed by this Court at the stage of admission.

3. However, it has not been possible for the petitioner to realise the benefits of the order that was passed by the Land Tribunal in her favour. The Land Tribunal had in terms of S.22 (2) of Act I of 1964 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 266/-for payment to the respondent as a condition precedent to the resumption. The order directed that the said amount should be deposited within the time prescribed in R.10 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1964. R.10 reads as follows:

"Besides the particulars mentioned in sub-section (2) of S.22, the order passed by the Land Tribunal shall specify the survey numbers, and sub-division numbers, if any (or an adequate description) of the land allowed to be resumed the extent of land that will be left after resumption, and the value of the improvements belonging to the cultivating tenant and the other persons, if any, interested in the land allowed to be resumed. The order shall also specify the amounts to be paid by the landlord resuming the land, and the person to whom the payments are to be made, and shall further direct that the amounts be deposited with the Land Tribunal within a period of thirty days from the date of the order-On such deposit being made, the Land Tribunal shall pay the amounts to the parties and obtain receipt therefor."

This rule substantially corresponds to R.11 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 which reads as follows:

"(1) Besides the particulars mentioned in sub-section (2) of S.22, the order passed by the Land Tribunal shall specify the survey numbers and sub-division numbers, if any (or an adequate description), of the land allowed to be resumed, the extent of land that will be left after resumption, and the value of the improvements belonging to the cultivating tenant and the other persons, if any, interested in the land allowed to be resumed

(2) The order referred to in sub-rule (1) shall also specify the amounts to be paid by the landlord resuming the land, and the persons to whom the payments are to be made and shall further direct that the amounts shall be deposited with the Land Tribunal within a period of thirty days from the date of the order; and on such deposit being made, the Land Tribunal shall pay the amounts to the parties and obtain receipt therefor.

(3) The order of the appellate authority against the order of the Land Tribunal udder sub-section (2) of S.22 shall, so far as may be specify the particulars mentioned in sub-rules (1) and (2)."

4. In terms of R.10 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1964, the petitioner was required to make the deposit of the value of improvements directed to be paid within one month from the date of the order. In other words, the deposit ought to have been made on or before 17 11967, as the order for resumption in the instant case was passed on 17121966 and the direction was that the amou