@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.@mdashThe questions arising for consideration in these revision petitions are identical and therefore those revisions
are disposed of by a common order. Aggrieved by the order of the Land Tribunal dismissing the applications u/s 72B the petitioners filed appeals
before the Appellate Authority. As the appeals were filed out of time, the petitioners were obliged to file petitions to condone the delay in filing the
appeals. One of the petitions to condone the delay was allowed on 27-10-1978. The other petitions were allowed later.
2. This was the state of affairs when the contesting respondents moved the Appellate Authority, petitions to review the orders allowing the petitions
to condone the delay. The Appellate Authority by the orders under challenge reviewed the orders and consequently dismissed the applications to
condone the delay in filing the appeals. These orders are under challenge in these revision petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, argues that the Appellate Authority being a creature of statute and since the statute does not contain a
specific provision conferring power on the authority to review the orders, the orders reviewing the orders allowing the petitions to condone the
delay must be held to be orders passed without jurisdiction. This argument at the first blush is attractive, but going deep into the question, one
could see that there is no substance in it. In this context, it is relevant to consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting
respondents. Though the Appellate Authority is a creature of the statute, there are provisions in the K.L.R. Act conferring power on the Appellate
Authority to review its orders. I think he is well founded in his argument.
4. I shall now. consider the relevant provisions of the K.L.R. Act. The Appellate Authority is constituted u/s 99A. Subsection 1 of this Section
provides (1) the Government may, by notification in the Gazette, constitute as many Appellate Authorities as may be necessary for the purpose of
this Act. (2) The Appellate Authority shall consist of a sole member who shall be a judicial officer not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge. The
Appellate Authority thus constituted is a quasi judicial authority. It is this Appellate Authority which is to hear the appeals filed u/s 102 K.L.R. Act
Sub-section 2 of Section 102 confers power on the Appellate Authority to entertain an appeal filed beyond time provided the appellant
satisfactorily explains the delay in filing the appeal.
5. Having understood the powers of the Appellate Authority, the further question that arises for consideration is, Has the Appellate Authority the
power to review its orders ? A reference in this connection to subsection 3 of Section 102 is profitable. This section says that in deciding appeals,
under sub-section (1) the Appellate Authority shall exercise all the powers which a court has and follow the same procedure which a court follows
in deciding appeals against the decree of an original court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1980. A court within the meaning of the C.P.C.
undoubtedly has the power to review its order by invoking the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1. This power must be deemed to be there in the
Appellate Authority by virtue of the specific provisions contained in sub-section 3 of Section 102. The Appellate Authority to my mind, therefore
has the power to review its orders. In short, the Appellate Authority can review its orders.
6. The petition for review however, requires to be filed within 30 days of the date of the order. It has thus been provided under Article 124 of the
Limitation Act. Can the Appellate Authority entertain a review application filed beyond 30 days is the further question that requires to be tackled.
The answer to this question depends upon the construction of Section 108 K.L.R. Act. This section provides that unless otherwise specifically
provided in the Act, the provisions of Section 5 of The Indian Limitation Act, 1908, shall apply to all proceedings under the Act. It is not the case
of either party that the Act contains specific provision enabling a party to file an application to condone the delay in filing the receiver application.
That means, a party filing an application for review out of time, can file a petition u/s 5 Limitation Act to condone the delay. It therefore follows that
the petition for review filed out of time shall be accompanied by a petition u/s 5 Limitation Act.
7. To sum up the Appellate Authority has the power to review its orders and the review application filed beyond time can be entertained provided
a petition u/s 5 Limitation Act accompanies the same. The question before me is whether the Appellate Authority in passing the order reviewing its
order condoning the delay in filing the appeal has discharged its function properly. It is not the case of the contesting respondents that their
applications for review were accompanied by applications u/s 5 Limitation Act, Nonetheless, the Appellate Authority has reviewed the orders and
dismissed the applications of the petitioners to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The orders under challenge under the circumstances must be
held to be orders passed without jurisdiction and as such they are liable to be set aside. I accordingly set aside the orders under challenge and
restore the appeals to file. The Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeals on merits. The Appellate Authority shall give the parties to
the proceedings an opportunity of being beard before the appeals are finally disposed of.
The C. R. Ps are allowed to the extent indicated above.