1. Is the Munnar Special Tribunal competent to adjudicate disputes with respect to ownership, possession, use or any rights whatsoever even between private individuals concerning the land in Munnar area?

2. These original petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the finding rendered by the Munnar Special Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) on maintainability. The petitioners in the two original petitions are brothers who were allotted 3.95 acres and 5 acres respectively under a Partition Deed (Document No.1346/1986) executed in their family. Their father obtained a larger extent of 27.45 acres of land in Pallivasal Village of Devikulam Taluk on assignment under the Cardamom Rules, 1935 (Travancore). The petitioners had filed two separate suits in O.S.Nos.27/2004 and 25/2004 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Thodupuzha. The suits though initially one for injunction against trespass were later amended as one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plea in the suits is that about 35 cents of land belonging to the family of the petitioners have been encroached upon for the purpose of constructing an approach road. The approach road has been allegedly laid to connect the bridge across the Kallar river to the Kallar-Mangulam road without even resorting to land acquisition.

3. The suits were transferred to the Tribunal after its constitution under Section 3 of the Munnar Special Tribunal Act, 2010 ('the Act' for short) which commenced sitting on 16-2-2011. The respondents (the defendants in the suits) are the Adimali Block Panchayat, Pallivasal Grama Panchayat, the Tahsildar, the Village Officers etc. The third defendant in the suits who was earlier award member and now the Vice President of the Grama Panchayat has however been impleaded in his personal capacity. The petitioners contend that the adjudication in the suits partakes the character of a private dispute by the junction of the third defendant. It is the case of the petitioners that the references to the Tribunal are hence unwarranted and that the cases have to be returned to the court of the Subordinate Judge. The Tribunal has by the orders impugned held that the references are maintainable and that it has got jurisdiction even if the adjudication is of private dispute.

4. I heard Mr.T.K.M.Unnithan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and Mrs.Susheela R.Bhat, Special Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents in these two original petitions.

5. A reference to the definition of the term 'Dispute' under Section 2(d) of the Act is more than sufficient to resolve the controversy and the same is extracted hereunder:-

(d) 'Dispute' means all disputes with respect to ownership, possession, use or any rights what so ever over or concerned the land in Munnar area as well as all constructions and other uses of the land in such area which are pending before any authority or courts.

A cursory look at the preamble of the Act also reveals that its purpose is to settle once and for all disputes within a fixed time limit pending before the various authorities including this Court. The disputes are ofcourse confined to the land in Munnar area which is rich in flora and fauna requiring preservation and comprises of the following villages:

i) Chinnakanal

ii) Kannan Devan Hills

iii) Santhanpara

iv) Vellathooval

v) Anavilasam

vi) Pallivasal

vii) Anaviratty &

viii) Bison valley

The Act no where indicates that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Act is confined to adjudication of disputes between a private individual on the one side and the Government officials on the other side. The all embracing definition of the term 'dispute' in the Act takes in the adjudication of issues even between private individuals. The only limitation is that the dispute should be with respect to ownership, possession, use or any rights whatsoever over the land in Munnar area in the 8 villages aforestated.

6. It is of