V. CHITAMBARESH, J.

1. Is leave of the appellate authority required to maintain an appeal by a person not party to the proceedings of the land tribunal? The issue arises in the context of Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (the Act for short).

2. Suo motu proceedings were initiated under Section 72C of the Act for assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner and intermediary vested in the government in respect of the holding. The revision petitioner and the second respondent (since deleted) were alone arrayed as the tenant and land owner in the proceedings before the land tribunal. The Land Tribunal-III, Malappuram by order dated 12.09.1997 assigned the right, title and interest of the land owner and intermediary in favour of the revision petitioner. It is not disputed before me that the said order of the land tribunal under Section 72 F(5) of the Act is appealable before the appellate authority under Section 102 of the Act.

3. The first respondent who was not a party to the order of the land tribunal filed an appeal therefrom under Section 102 of the Act along with an application to condone the delay of 6 years, 4 months and 7 days. The first respondent contended that the revision petitioner had not produced any document to establish his tenancy under the land owner - Manjeri Kovilakam well before 01.04.1964. The first respondent asserted that it was his grand father who took the property on lease which was later allotted to the share of his father in the partition effected in the family in the year 1986. The first respondent added that his father subsequently assigned the property to him under sale deed (document No. 1766 of 1997, SRO Manjeri) and that he is the cultivating tenant entitled for certificate of purchase.

4. The Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur by order dated 21.06.2012 condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the land tribunal further remanding the case for denovo consideration. The appellate authority felt that an order has been obtained by the revision petitioner from the land tribunal behind the back of the first respondent warranting a fresh disposal of the lis on merits. The order of the appellate authority is impugned in this Civil Revision Petition by the revision petitioner under Section 103 of the Act raising many factual and legal issues. The main thrust of the argument of the revision petitioner is that no leave was obtained by the first respondent from the appellate authority in order to maintain an appeal from the order of the land tribunal.

5. I heard Mr. M.A. Abdul Hakhim, Advocate on behalf of the revision petitioner, Mr. S.A. Saju, Advocate on behalf of the first respondent and Mr. K.K. Saidalavi, Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the State.

6. The contention that the first respondent who was not a party to the order of the land tribunal should have obtained leave from the appellate authority to file an appeal is rested on Vareed Jacob vs. Jayakumar, 2010 (3) KLT 389. My attention was drawn to the following observations in the said decision:-

"13. The first thing to be noticed is that the appellant, being a third party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, whatever be the right claimed by him by virtue of a sale deed executed more than three decades after the issue of the purchase certificate, cannot maintain an appeal without preferring an application seeking leave of the Appellate Authority to entertain his appeal. He must prima facie show that he is an aggrieved party by the issue of the purchase certificate as he being a third party to the proceedings. The leave applied, if any, by him has to be considered with notice to the parties interested, the legal representatives of the tenant in whose favour the certificate was issued by the Land Tribunal. No such leave was applied for by the appellant, and the Appellate Authority also did not examine that question before entertaining the appeal preferred by t