Decided on September 30,1974



- (1.) The petitioner is a kudikidappukaran in a land having an area of 21 cents belonging to respondents 2 to 4 as tenants in common. These respondents filed an application before the first respondent, the Land Tribunal, Pattanakad under S.77 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for shifting the kudikidappu of the petitioner to an alternate site, which belonged to the second respondent. The application stated that the applicants required the land for building a residential house for the second respondent and also for constructing shop rooms for the purpose of their business. The application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the requirement mentioned in the application was not bona fide, and that the alternate site offered for the shifting was not suitable. A Commission was issued to visit the alternate site and report about its suitability. He submitted a report stating that it was suitable. The Commissioner was examined and the report was proved. The second respondent examined himself in support of his case. The petitioner got himself examined; and he also examined another witness on his side. The first respondent after considering the evidence and the contentions advanced by the parties before him passed an order Ext. P4 dated 11-4-1974 allowing the application This Original Petition has been filed to quash the above order.
(2.) Three grounds have been urged before me by the petitioner's counsel -- (i) The Land Tribunal's finding that the requirement of the landholders was bona fide was vitiated under law, since he did not consider the existence of other suitable lands in arriving at that finding. (ii) The Tribunal's finding that the alternate site offered by the landholders for shifting the kudikidappu was bad under law, since he failed to consider the petitioner's evidence on that point. (iii) The application itself was not maintainable, since the land offered by the landholders as alternate site for the shifting did not belong to all of them jointly, but only to one of them. I shall consider these grounds seriatim.
(3.) There is no case that the requirement of the landholders that one of them wanted a land to build a house for his separate residence is not bona fide. The deposition of the second respondent before the Land Tribunal is Ext. P5, in which he has stated that himself and his wife and children are staying with his parents along with his two brothers and their wives and children, that there was no sufficient convenience for all of them to live together in the same house, and that he required a separate building for his residence with family. There is also no case that the land in which the petitioner is having his kudikidappu is not suitable for constructing a building for the said purpose. The only contention is that the landholders have other lands which are more suitable for the said purpose, and that the requirement for having the land in which the petitioner's kudikidappu is situate was not, therefore bona fide. It was also contended that the land holder must establish that he required the very particular land in which the kudikidappu is situate in order to entitle him to get the kudikidappukaran shifted therefrom. In other words, if he has other suitable lands, be is not entitled to disturb the kudikidappukaran.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.