The issue arising in this original petition is not on the main issue pertaining to the issuance of purchase certificate by the Land Tribunal but rather related to procedural irregularity emerging out of non filing of an application for abatement consequent upon the death of one of the party respondents in the original application filed before the Land Tribunal. The facts involved are as follows:
The contesting respondents herein are the legal representatives of the deceased fourth respondent/P.T.Malu. Late P.T.Malu had filed an application for assignment of land in O.A.No.8383 of 1976. It appears that in the application, she had shown only 4 cents of land and however, land O.P.No.1369/1993 -:2:- having an extent of 6,1/8 cents was assigned in her favour. Challenging the said order, the first respondent in O.A.No.8383 of 1976 filed an appeal as A.A.No.452 of 1982. In appeal, the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. In that process, intermediary jenmi Janaki Amma died and the petitioner in O.A.No.8383 of 1976 did not take steps to implead the legal heirs of deceased Janaki Amma within time. The Land Tribunal holding that the appeal has become abated, dismissed the application. Challenging the said order of the Land Tribunal, the original applicant moved the Appellate Authority in A.A.No.127 of 1991. The Appellate Authority remitted back the matter with liberty to the original applicant to file an application for impleading as well as delay condonation application. The appellate authority held that there is no necessity to file a fresh application for setting aside the abatement. The application for condonation of delay would be O.P.No.1369/1993 -:3:- sufficient for the purpose of procedural compliance.
2. Challenging the appellate order, the legal heirs of the intermediary jenmi filed this original petition. This Court by judgment dated 14/08/1998 set aside judgment of the Appellate Authority and directed the Land Tribunal to proceed further to consider the application for assignment of 4 cents of land. Challenging the above judgment, the contesting respondent filed a writ appeal. In the writ appeal, the Division Bench noted by the time this Court disposed the original petition, the contesting respondent who was arrayed as the fourth respondent passed away, even before the passing of the judgment. Therefore, the Division Bench, noting death of the fourth respondent and holding that the judgment in the original petition as nullity, set aside judgment and directed the original petition to be reconsidered. Accordingly, O.P.No.1369/1993 -:4:- the original petition has come up for hearing today after filing impleading petition in the year 2015.
3. The learned counsel for both the parties argued extensively. It is to be noted that final extent available for assignment, whether it is 4 cents or 6 and 1/8 cents will have to be decided by the statutory authority. The question that is to be decided is whether the applicants application for purchase of land has to be knocked down on account of non compliance of procedure. Procedural law is a handmaid of substantial law. If sufficient reasons are shown, the authority or the court has necessary power to set aside abatement. In the case in hand, an application has been filed for condonation of delay in impleading without an application to set aside abatement. If at all what could have been insisted is separate applications. If any application for abatement or condonation of delay has been sought in one application that would O.P.No.1369/1993 -:5:- be sufficient for procedural purposes, provided the applicants paid necessary fee as applicable.
4. Having gone through the nature of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, this Court is of the view that even without an application for setting aside abatement, in the light of the application for condonation of delay in filing application for impleading, that power ought to have been exercised to set aside abatement. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for interference with the order passed by the Appellate Authority by exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. The Land Tribunal is directed to dispose of the application for purchase certificate within a period of four months after hearing both the parties. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms