Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 119 (KAR)

S. KESHAVA RAO v. S. RAMA RAO

1987-05-05

K.A.SWAMI

body1987
K. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) 1. Though this Civil Revision Petition is posted for orders having regard to the fact that it can be disposed of on a short point, by consent of parties, it is taken up for final disposal. ( 2 ) THIS revision petition is preferred under Seciion 121a of the Karnataka land Reforms Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 28-3-1987 passed by the Land reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore district, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Authority) in No. LRA 1278/86 dismissing the appeal p'eferred by the petitioner as not maintainable. ( 3 ) THAT was an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 27-11-1986, passed by the Land Tribunal hoskote (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for an order of temporary injunction under Section 48c of the Act. ( 4 ) IN this petition it is not in dispute that the order dated 27-11-1986 is signed by the Chairman alone. The appellate Authority has taken a view that such an order does not amount to an order of the Tribunal, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable because, under Section 118 (1 A) of the Act, the appeal lies only against the order passed by the Tribunal. In support of this view, the Appellate Authority has relied upon the two decisions of this Court in Koragamma p. Shedthi v Coondapur Taluk land Tribunal and another (W A. No. 447/76 disposed on 26-10-1977) (Reportedin 198 (1)Kar. L. . J. 14: I. LR. 1979 (1) Kar. S. N. R D. No 16 at page 233) and in gangadharayya Gurusiddaiah v Land Tribunal, haliyal and another (W. P. No. 7597/1976 disposed of on 27-10-1978 ). In W A. No. 447/1976 it was held as follows: "we have not come across any case where the Chairman alone signs the order and the Members do not sign. Signatures of the Members are necessary to render the order one made by the Tribunal. The fact that the original order has been signed only by the Chairman and not by the other members, renders the order, in our opinion, ineffective and inoperative. In the eye of law it is no order at all. This is not a technical error. It is an infirmity which goes to the root of the matter. The fact that the original order has been signed only by the Chairman and not by the other members, renders the order, in our opinion, ineffective and inoperative. In the eye of law it is no order at all. This is not a technical error. It is an infirmity which goes to the root of the matter. " the sum and substance of the aforesaid enunciation is that it cannot at all be considered to be a valid order of the tribunal. But it is not the same thing as saying that such an order ceases to be an order of the tribunal, therefore no appeal as provided under Section 118 (1 A) of the Act is maintainable. If a civil court whose decree is appealable, under the Code of Civil Procedure, to the next superior court, passes a decree which is without jurisdiction, such a decree does not cease to be a decree of the civil court and it does not become unavailable for appeal. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal, if signed by the Chairman alone, does not cease to be the one to which the provisions regarding appeal contained in Section 118 (1a) of the Act are not attracted. In writ Appeal No. 447 of 1976 the scope and ambit of Section 118 (1 A) of the act are not considered. As per this provision, from every decision or order passed by the Tribunal, an appeal lies to the Appellate Authority. Ths effect of the decision in W. A. No. 447/1976 is that such an order is invalid and inoperative. But that does not mean that, to such an order the provisions of Section 118 (1 A) of the Act are not attracted. In W. P. No. 7597/1976 (Gangadharayya gurusiddaiah v Land Tribunal haliyal and another, decided on 27-10- 1978), the decision was signed by the chairman of the Land Tribunal alone. It was held that such a decision was not passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not by the Tribunal as such. In that case also, it was not considered whether such an order was appealable under the provisions of the act. It was held that such a decision was not passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not by the Tribunal as such. In that case also, it was not considered whether such an order was appealable under the provisions of the act. ( 5 ) THE words every decision or order passed by the Tribunal under the act' occurring in Section 118 (1a) of the act have to be given wider meaning to enable an aggrieved party to avail the remedy of appeal, which lies both on facts and law. As long as the order appealed is the one which could have been passed by the Tribunal under the act, the mere fact that it is passed or signed by the Chairman of the Tribunal alone in the purported exercise of the power of the Tribunal under the Act, it does not stand excluded from the purview of the provisions of Section 118 (1 A) of the Act. The Chairman of the tribunal is an integral part of the Tribunal and so also the members of the tribunal. Any other interpretation will veiv much affect the object with which the provision for an appeal against every decision or order of the Tribunal is provided by special amencmsnt (Karnataka act No. 19/1986 ). Section 118 (1a) of the Act is very widely worded. Every decision or order passed by the Tribunal under the Act is made appealable. An interpretation of a statute should, without doing any violence to the provisions concerned in the statute, always aim at advancing the object of the statute. "therefore, it appears to me that the Appellate Authority has not correctly viewed these decisions. The view taken by this court in those two decisions amounts to holding that such an order is not a valid order of the Tribunal. It is not laid down by this Court that such an order ceases to be or is not an order of the Tribunal so as to deprive the aggrieved party to avail the remedy of an appeal under Sec. 118 (1a) of the act. If the order is signed by the Chairman alone, it will not be a valid order of the Tribunal. If the order is signed by the Chairman alone, it will not be a valid order of the Tribunal. It is in this sense, that this Court has laid down that such an order cannot at all be considered as an order of the Tribunal liable for appeal under Section 118 (1 A) of the Act. Such an order may not be a valid order but nevertheless it is an order of the Tribunal as it is passed by the person in his capacity as Chairman of the Tribunal in the purported exercise of the power of the tribunal. Therefore, the Appellate authority is not right in rejecting the appeal as not maintainable. " ( 6 ) SRI Rama Rao, learned Advocate for the contesting respondents submits that, admittedly, the order of the Land tribunal issigned by the Chairman alone, therefore, the application may be remitted to the Land Tribunal. In on appeal preferred under Section 118 (1a) of the act, it is required, and it is the intentment of the legislature as incorporated in sub-section (2) of Section 113 of the act, that the Appellate Authority shall not remit the appeal and shall decide it on merits. That being so, the Appellate authority even though, it vested with all the powers of a court of appeal under the Civil Procedute Code, but the power of remand either for recording fresh decision or for recording further evidence or for any other purpose has been specifically denied. This shows that the appellate Authority has to decide the appeal, if necessary on recording further evidence but not to remand it to the tribunal under any circumstance. That being so, it is not possible to accept the contention and remit the matter to the Tribunal. As the appeal has not been decided on merits by the Appellate authority and it is disposed of on the ground that it is not maintainable, as such the only way is to remit the matter to the Appellate Authority with a direction to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 28-3-1987 passed by the appellate Authority, in LRA. 1278/86 is set aside. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 28-3-1987 passed by the appellate Authority, in LRA. 1278/86 is set aside. The appeal now stands remitted to the Appellate Authority, with a direction to afford an opportunity to the parties to file their objections if any and decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in the light of the observation made in this order. Writ Petition Allowed. --- *** --- .