S.NATARAJAN, SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE
S. Appukuttan – Appellant
Versus
Thundiyil Janaki Amma – Respondent
Judgment
NATARAJAN, J.:- The appeals by special leave and the special leave petitions raise a common question of law regarding the scope and effect of Explanation II-A to Clause (25) of Section 2 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, (for short the Act hereafter) as amended by Act 17 of 1972. It is, however, necessary to mention two matters even at the outset of judgment. Had the judgments in the two appeals been pronounced after the decision in Velayudhan v. Aishabi, AIR 1981 Ker 185 by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, the results would have been different and there would have been no necessity for these appeals being filed. Secondly, the decision in Velayudhan v. Aishabi has become final since no appeal has been preferred to this Court against the judgment therein.
2. What falls for consideration in all these cases is whether by reason of Explanation IIA to Section 2(25) of the Act, a person in occupation of a homestead or a hut belonging to another during the period stipulated in the Explanation would become a kudikidappukaran and be entitled to kudikidappu rights under the Act.
3. For a proper understanding of the issue, we may make a brief reference to the history of the Le
distinguished : Sonawati v. Sri Ram
Azad Singh v. Barkatullah Khan
M. K. Venkatachalam v. Bombay Deying and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Commissioner of Income Tax v. S. Teja Singh
Industrial Supplies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority
Bharat Singh v. New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre
referred to : Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.