K.HARILAL, J

The

questions,

that

arise

for

consideration in this O.P.(C) are: (1) Has

the buyer, who entered into an agreement for

sale with the seller, the right to get

impleaded in an application filed by the

seller, against the Government, under

Section 10 of the Kerala Forests (Vesting

and Management of Ecologically Fragile Land)

Act 2003 (herein after referred to as 'the

EFL Act') seeking a decree declaring that

the application schedule property is not an

ecologically fragile land and to set aside

the order passed against the seller. (2)

Does an agreement for sale of an immovable

property by itself create a charge in favour

of the buyer at the inception of the

OP(C).No. 2882 of 2011 3

agreement itself, on the seller's interest

in the property, to the extent of advance

purchase money paid by the buyer under

Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property

Act.

2. The petitioner herein is the

applicant in O.A No.5/2009, filed before the

Court of the Tribunal for EFL Cases,

Kozhikode. The aforesaid O.A was filed,

seeking a decree declaring that the

application schedule property is not an

ecologically fragile land and to set aside

the order dated 18.06.2009 passed by the 2^nd

respondent herein, whereby, 242 acres of

land belonging to the petitioner was

declared as 'Ecological Fragile Land'. While

the aforesaid O.A was pending consideration

before the Tribunal, the 3^rd respondent

herein filed a petition, under Order I Rule

OP(C).No. 2882 of 2011 4

10 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, seeking to get himself impleaded

in the said O.A as supplemental 2^nd applicant

or supplemental 3^rd respondent.

3. The petitioner herein filed objection

contending that the 3^rd respondent has no

right to get himself impleaded in the said

O.A as he has no kind of right or interest

in the said property. But the petitioner

admitted that there was an agreement for

sale, dated 14.09.2004 and the term of

agreement expired on 30.09.2005. Since the

3^rd respondent was not ready and willing to

perform his part of the contract, the sale

deed was not executed and the 3^rd respondent

has not resorted to file a civil suit for

specific performance, so far. That apart,

though the petitioner had executed a power-

of-attorney in favour of the 3^rd respondent,

OP(C).No. 2882 of 2011 5

the said power-of-attorney also has expired

on 30.09.2005 and it is no longer in force.

The 3^rd respondent cannot claim any kind of

right over the property, either under the

agreement for sale or under the power-of-

attorney, which stands expired.

4. After considering the rival pleas,

the Tribunal allowed the said application

and the 3^rd respondent was impleaded as the

supplemental 3^rd respondent in the above O.A.

The legality and propriety of the findings,

whereby the Tribunal allowed the 3^rd

respondent to get himself impleaded in the

proceedings in the O.A, filed by the

petitioner, are assailed in this O.P.C.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the learned Special Government

Pleader and the learned counsel for the

respondent.

OP(C).No. 2882 of 2011 6

6. Let us consider both questions

together, as they are intricately connected

together. Going by the impugned order, it

could be seen that the 3^rd respondent has

filed an application to get himself

impleaded in the O.A, either as second

applicant or as 3^rd respondent, on the basis

of an agreement for sale, dated 14.09.2004,

executed by the petitioner in favour of the

3^rd respondent. Therefore, the question in

controversy involved in this OP(C) revolves

around the scope and extent of right in

favour of the 3^rd

respondent/buyer and

emerges from the agreement for sale, dated

14.09.2004. There arises the general

question, what is the extent of right

conferred to the buyer, under an agreement

for sale of an immovable property.

According to