The court emphasized the requirement for the alternate site to be owned by the landowner at the time of the application for shifting and clarified the permissibility of withdrawing an earlier application and appeal for the purpose of filing a fresh application.

1. The respondents in an application for shifting the kudikidappu under S 75(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, for short the Act, are the revision petitioners. The 1st respondent in this revision petition claimed shifting of the kudikidappu on the ground that he required the land for running an automobile workshop. He filed an application in 1972 as O.A. 985 of 1972. That application was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed an appeal as LRAS 2149 of 1977. During the pendency of the appeal, the counsel for the applicant (1st respondent herein) fried a petition to the effect that he may be allowed to withdraw the appeal as well as O.A. 2591 of 1975 (this is the renumbered O.A originally filed as O.A 985 of 1972.) The petition for withdrawal was made in view of a decision of this Court wherein this Court said that the alternate site offered to the kudikidappukars must be owned by the land-owner even at the time when the application for shifting is filed. In this case, the landowner had only an agreement to purchase the land offered as the alternate site and so, he felt that even if he establishes his case of bona fides and other requirements of law, the court may not grant him the relief he sought for. So, he wanted the appeal as well as the O.A. to be withdrawn in order to enable him to file a fresh application after obtaining the title to the alternate site. This petition was not opposed by the revision petitioners herein and so, the petition for withdrawal was allowed and the appeal was dismissed.

2. Thereafter, in 1982, the 1st respondent herein filed an application, O.A. 60 of 1982, of course on the same ground that be required the plot of land for running a workshop. It is in evidence that the land in question is only a small bit of land measuring about 51/2 cents and the 1st respondent, owner of the plot, was working as a mechanic in a company and be wanted to have a workshop started by himself and for that purpose he sought the shifting of the kudikidappu. The alternate site offered was also very near to the land where the kudikidappu is situated, but it was a little interior, not facing the same road.

3. The Tribunal, after an elaborate enquiry into the questions of bona fides and suitability of the alternate site offered, came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent herein is entitled to claim the shifting of the kudikidappu. The application was allowed. The kudikidappukars filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also re-assessed the evidence elaborately and concurred with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal.

4. As far as the question of bona fides and other factual requirements required under the provisions of the Act are concerned, they are matters which I cannot examine exercising my revisional power under S.103 of the Act. The section only provides an examination of matters relating to questions of law. The section reads thus:

"103. Revision by High Court. (1) Any person aggrieved by

(i) any final order passed in an appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal or;

(ii) any final order passed by the Land Board under this Act; or

(iii)any final order of the Taluk Land Board under this Act, may, within such time as may be prescribed, prefer a petition to the High Court against the order on the ground that the appellate authority or the Land Board, or the Taluk Land Board, as the case may be, has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law.

5. Though affirmation by the first appellate authority of a crucial fact found by the Land Tribunal insulates the verdict with no inerrablity, but since absolute objective certainty is impossible in the decision process is this imperfect world, there is plain and perfect justification on practical reasons to unopen the pylon when the first two authorities concur in the factual conclusion at separate levels, particularly in view of the restricted jurisdiction under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Court's prime devoi