JUDGMENT P.K. Shamsuddin, J. 1. In all these Original Petitions, petitioners and respondent are the same and a common question of law arises. Accordingly, I heard all these petitions together. 2. In O. P. 11222/90 - J, petitioners challenge the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Tribunal), Palakkad, the 6th respondent, directing the petitioners to refund a sum of Rs. 2,367,17 as excess amount of rent received by them. This is for the period 1152 M. E. (1976 - 77). In O. P. 1389/92-M, the petitioners challenge Ext. P4 order of Special Deputy Collector (L. T.), Palakkad, ordering to refund a sum of Rs. 2,799.28 together with 6% interest on the principal amount of Rs. 2,710/-. This also is stated to be the excess amount of rent paid for the years 1150 M.E. (1974-75). In O. P. 1508/92-D, challenge is against Ext. P5, whereby the Special Deputy Collector (L.T.), Palakkad ordered refund of an amount of Rs.2,227/-together with interest at 6% on the principal amount of Rs. 2,152/- till realisation, which is stated to be an excess amount paid by way of rent for the year 1151 M. E. (1975-76). 3. The Facts which are necessary for determining the question involved in the case may briefly be stated as follows; petitioners filed an application under S.16 of K. L. R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) for resumption, impleading the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 5 as the tenant in-possession. Though the petitioners applied for resumption of the entire extent of land, the Tribunal allowed the application only in respect of onehalf of the properties measuring 5.12 acres C.R.P. No. 595/72 was filed before this court against the order of resumption, but that was dismissed and the order of the Tribunal became final. However, petitioners got possession of the property allowed to be resumed only on 23-6-1977. 4. However, petitioners got possession of the property allowed to be resumed only on 23-6-1977. 4. S.72(2) of the Act lays down that where in the case of a holding or part of a holding mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (1), the order rejecting the application for resumption, either in part or in full, has become final, the right, title and interest of the land owner and the intermediaries, if any, of the holding, as the case may be, in respect of which resumption has not been allowed shall, with effect from the date on which the application for resumption has been finally rejected, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances created by the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, and subsisting thereon on the said date. 5. Petitioners filed applications for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the land, which was not allowed to be resumed for the various periods. Those applications are A. 327/77, A. 1027/75 and A. 1918/76. These relate to for the periods 1150 M. E., 1151 M. E. and 1152 M. E. respectively. The Land Tribunal allowed the applications and held that the landlord is entitled to the entire rent claimed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal, the tenant filed appeals and those appeals were allowed and it was held that the tenant is not liable to pay any rent at all. Petitioners filed C. R. P. Nos. 2696/84 and 1701/85, challenging the order of the Appellate Authority. This court took the view that the petitioners are entitled to recover rent in respect of lands, which were allowed to be resumed upto the date of taking possession of the land by the landlord. It is not disputed that the landlord took possession of the land only on 23-6-1977. 6. It appears that the landlord has recovered the entire rent ordered to be paid by the Land Tribunal which was the subject matter in C. R. Ps. 2696/84 and 1701/85. However, this court in disposing of the above C. R. Ps. clarified that the landlord is entitled to get the rent only upto the date, of taking possession. In the circumstances, respondents, 1 to 5 filed an application purporting to be under S.128B of the Act. That application was opposed by the landlord, raising various contentions. 2696/84 and 1701/85. However, this court in disposing of the above C. R. Ps. clarified that the landlord is entitled to get the rent only upto the date, of taking possession. In the circumstances, respondents, 1 to 5 filed an application purporting to be under S.128B of the Act. That application was opposed by the landlord, raising various contentions. One such contention is that S.128 B of the Act does not authorise the Land Tribunal to entertain an application for recovery of excess amount of rent paid in accordance with the original order passed by the land Tribunal, which was later modified and reduced by the appellate or revisional authority. Secondly, it was contended that S.72 (o) specifically provides to adjust payment of excess amount paid by the tenant by way of rent towards the purchase price due from the tenant to the landlord for assignment of the rights of the landlord and intermediaries. It was contended that applications had been filed by the respondents to purchase the right of the landlord and Intermediaries in respect of lands, which were not allowed to be resumed and the contention is that by virtue of the provisions contained in S.72(o) and 72 (F) (vii), the tenant can only adjust the excess payments made by way of rent towards purchase price and cannot file a separate application under S.72B to recover such amounts. This contention did not find favour with the Land Tribunal, which took the view that the Tribunal has jurisdiction under S.128B in a situation like this to direct refund of the amount. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that S.72(QQ) was introduced into the main Act only by S.2 of K. L. R. (Amendment) Act, 1981 and prior to that the position was that the landlord was entitled to recover rent in respect of lands rejected to be resumed. In the circumstances, the original order made by the Tribunal enabling the landlord to recover rent in respect of the lands rejected to be resumed was correct. 8. In the circumstances, the original order made by the Tribunal enabling the landlord to recover rent in respect of the lands rejected to be resumed was correct. 8. Learned counsel also submitted that after the Appellate Authority set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and held that no rent is payable the tenant moved the Land Tribunal under S.128B on the ground that this is an excess payment, which can be recovered under Sec, 128B, but that application was rejected by Ext, P4 in O. P. 1389/92 and that will operate as res judicata and on this ground also, the order now passed by the Tribunal in these cases is unsustainable. 9. Section 128B of the Act reads as follows: "128B. Wrong or excess payments recoverable under Revenue Recovery Act - If, for any reason any amount has been paid by the Land Board or the Land Tribunal to any person not entitled to such amount under this Act or to any person in excess of the amounts due to him under this Act, such amount or, as the case may be, the amount in excess shall be recoverable from the person to whom it has been paid as arrears of public revenue due on land under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being In force." Learned counsel for petitioners "argued that this provision will apply only to excess payments made by the Tribunal. On going through the sections I am not in a position to say that S.128B will not cover a case where an excess payment was ordered by the Tribunal pursuant to which the tenant paid excess amount and on appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed that finding and held that nothing was due or something less than what was ordered to be paid alone was due. 10. The question however remains to be considered whether once the tenant files an application for assignment of the landlord's right, should such excess amounts be adjusted towards purchase price? S.72(F)(7) says that if the land owner or any intermediary is liable to pay any amount to the cultivating tenant under this Act, the Land Tribunal shall, in passing orders under this section, set off such amount against the compensation payable to the landowner or that intermediary. S.72(F)(7) says that if the land owner or any intermediary is liable to pay any amount to the cultivating tenant under this Act, the Land Tribunal shall, in passing orders under this section, set off such amount against the compensation payable to the landowner or that intermediary. This would Indicate that if the application is filed for assignment of the landlord's right, it is incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to adjust and set off the amount due to the tenant, which is paid to the landlord by way of excess rent in the purchase price. Both S.128B and 72(O)(F) & (C) have to be read harmoniously and so construed, the conclusion which strikes me is that in a case where such an application for purchase of landlord's right is pending, the proper course to be adopted is to adjust such amounts in the purchase price as it is an imperative legislative command to adjust such excess payment in the purchase price. This will lead to the conclusion that in a case where the tenant files an application under S.72B, he will not resort to S.128 B and rather would claim a set off in the payment of purchase price payable by him for assignment of the rights of the landlords and Intermediaries. 11. The result of the discussion would be that the petitioners will not be entitled to recover the excess amounts in these proceedings, but would get excess amounts adjusted in the purchase price payable by him for the purchase of the landlord's right. 12. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 brought to my notice that in the proceedings for assignment before the Land Tribunal, the landlord had taken a position that these excess payments are not adjustable towards the purchase price. Counsel for petitioners however submitted that no objection would be raised in adjusting the excess amount paid by the tenant in the purchase price. If for any reason, such amounts are not adjusted in the purchase price, the impugned orders will stand and it would be lawful to recover the amount as provided in S.128B of the Act. Original Petitions are disposed of as above.