MAMMU versus HARI MOHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 07-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS, D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAMMU 
v. 
HARi MOHAN A."ID ANR. 
JANUARY 7, 2000 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
Kera/a Land Refonns Act, 1963: Sections BOA, BOB and 103-Applica-
tion for purchase of kudikidappu rights filed by the appellant/tenant dismissed 
by the Land Tribunal-Appeal before the Appellate Authority allowed-Jn 
C revision, High Coun remanded matter back to the Appellate Authority for 
reconsideration-Appellate Authority passed order in favour of the appellant 
tenant:-Order of the Land Tribunal set aside-Case remanded back to Land 
Tribunal-Land Tribunal held appellant entitled to a part of lan!l-Sub-
sequent order of the Land Tribunal challenged in appeal-Appeal dismissed 
D by Appellate Authority on the ground that its previous order was conclusive 
as it was not challenged in revision-Revision against subsequent order of the 
Appellate Authority allowed-On appeal, Held: Section 103( l)(i) of the Act 
conveys that a revision cannot be filed against an interlocutory order passed 
in appeaf-Order not disposing of an appeal is not a final ordei--Order of 
E remand is not on interlocutory ordel'-Revision petition maintainable against 
an order of remand by the Appellate Authority. 
The respondent had let out a room to the appellant which was 
originally constructed as shop room. The appellant filed applications for 
purchase of kudikidappu rights, under Section 80-B of the Kerala Land 
F Reforms Act, 1963, before the Land Tribunal, which was dismissed. 
Appellant's appeal before the Appellate Authority was allowed holding that 
the appellant was a kudikidappukaran entitled to purchase the kudikidappu. 
The respondent's challenge to the said order in revision was allowed by 
the High Court. The order of the Appellate Authority was set aside and 
the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for fresh dis-
G posal on consideration of different factors like difference between the 
building and the structure, object for which and the circumstance under 
which the structure was allowed to be constructed etc. After the remand, 
the Appellate Authority passed an order in favour of the appellant as a 
result of which the appeal was allowed and order of Land Tribunal was 
H set aside and the case WdS remanded back to the Land Tribunal for 
84 
-
MAM.Ml.'. V. HARl ~IOHA."11 
85 
granting of kudikidappu right to the appellant. The Land Tribunal found A 
the appellant entitled to 10 cents of land as kudikidappu. Said order of the 
U'nd Tribunal W"ds challenged in appeal by the respondent before the 
Appellate Authority which was dbmissed on the finding that since the 
previous order of the Appellate Authority was a final order and since that 
order was not challenged in revision it became final and conclusive. 
Challenge to this order of the Appellate Authority was allowed by the High 
Court in revision. The High Court, overruling the objecticn I"dised by the 
appellant against maintainability of the revision, held that order of the 
Appellate Authority cannot be a final order deciding upon the rights and 
liabilities of the parties or their mutual obligations. On merits, the High 
Court held that the structure in question was not an independent structure 
B 
c 
and it was only an adjunct or appurtenance to the shop room let out to 
tbe appellant with respect to which, the claim of kudikidappu would not lie. 
Hence the present appeal. 
The issues involved in this appeal were whether the order of the 
Appellate Authority remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal with a D 
direction to pass order in the light of the observationsidirections in the 
order is a 'final order' within the meaning of Section 103 (1) of the Act and 
whether the finding of the High Court that the appellant cannot claim 
kudiktdappu in respect of the structure in question is sustainable in law. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Clause (i) of sub·Section (1) of Section 103 of the Kerala 
Land Reforms Act, 1963 provides that any final order passed in an appeal 
E 
is available to be challenged in revision by any person aggrieved by such 
F 
order. The clear and unambiguous language in which the section is 
couched conveys the meaning that a revision petition cannot be filed 
against an interlocutory order passed in an appeal. An order which does 
not dispose of the appeal is not a 'final order'. An order of remand in which 
the matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal for disposal in accordance 
v;ith law cannot be said to be an interloc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.