M M JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
STATE OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
Govindan Nair, C. J. (For himself and on behalf of Gopalan Nambiyar J.) -
(1.) The question raised in this petition is whether the provisions regarding "kudikidappu" and the right of a "kudikidappukaran" to purchase the "kudikidappu" will apply to the land inside the municipality.
(2.) The petitioner rented out a small building to the third respondent. The fourth respondent, the daughter of the third respondent, and his son inlaw the 5th respondent, are residing in that building. It is alleged that the 6th and 7th respondents trespassed on the property and put up two huts. All five of them have filed applications for purchase of the "kudikidappu".
(3.) This petition has been taken on the basis of the decision in Sankaran Nambissan v. Sarvothama Rao ( 1972 KLT 891 ). The contention is that the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 will apply only to agricultural lands and will not therefore apply to the buildings inside the municipality. The very definition of a "kudikidappukaran" indicates that the Act would apply to areas within the municipality. The provision in sub-s.(3) of S.80A. dealing with the right of a "kudikidappukaran" to purchase his kudikidappu indicates that the lands inside the municipal areas are specifically brought within the ambit of "the section, necessarily indicating that there can be "kudikidappu" inside a municipal area. It is therefore idle to contend that the Act will not apply to municipal areas. The Act having been included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution its validity cannot now be questioned on the ground that it infringes Art.31A of the Constitution. The decision in Sankaran Nambissan v. Sarvothama Rao 1972 KLT 891 will therefore be of no assistance to the petitioner. We may add that the correctness of the decision is also challenged by the respondent in the light of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Balmadies Plantations Ltd. and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 1972 SC 2240 ) and State of Kerala and another v. The Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. etc. ( AIR 1973 SC 2734 ). But this question does not arise for the Act has become immune from challenge by its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution. We dismiss this petition. There will be no order as to costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.