SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(Ker) 106

Judges : V.P.GOPALAN NAMBIYAR,T.CHANDRASEKHARA MENON
SATHI BAI KAMATH - Appellant
Versus
SUB COLLECTOR, TELLICHERRY AND OTHERS - Respondent
Case No : W. A. No. 136 of 1974
Decided On : 06/06/1977
Advocates Appeared :
V. R. Venkitakrishnan; For Appellant Government Pleader; For Respondents 1 and 2 M. I. Joseph; For Respondent 3

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the officer authorized by the Government had the power to dispose of the application under S.75(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and the court found little scope for interference under Art.226 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

Jurisdiction - Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - S.75(3) - R.72 - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the officer authorized by the Government to deal with the application under S.75(3) of the Act and the interpretation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The court found that the officer authorized had the power to dispose of the application and rejected the objection to jurisdiction raised by the appellants.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants challenged an order made by the Sub Collector, Tellicherry, allowing an application for shifting the kudikidappu under S.75(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The appellants argued that the Sub Collector had no jurisdiction to deal with the application and that the order was not judicially disposed of.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the officer authorized by the Government had the power to dispose of the application under S.75(3) of the Act and rejected the objection to jurisdiction raised by the appellants. The court also found little scope for interference under Art.226 of the Constitution and dismissed the writ appeal.

Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the officer authorized by the Government to deal with the application under S.75(3) of the Act and the validity of the order allowing the application for shifting the kudikidappu.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the officer authorized by the Government had the power to dispose of the application under S.75(3) of the Act and rejected the objection to jurisdiction raised by the appellants. The court also found little scope for interference under Art.226 of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed by the court.

Judgment :-

1. The appellants were the respondents in an application made to the Collector, under S.75 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, by the 3rd respondent herein, for shifting the kudikidappu, and for the purpose of acquiring land to provide an alternative site to the appellants, to which they might be shifted. The application was enquired into by the Sub Collector, Tellicherry, and by Ext. P1 order that Officer found that the applicant had less than one acre of land as on 17 1969 and that he had established his bona fides for constructing a house for his own residence in the kudikidappu. Hence the application for shifting the kudikidappu was allowed. The applicant was directed to deposit 871/2% of the cost of acquisition of alternative land for providing kudikidappu to the appellants herein, and was also found to be liable to deposit the shifting charges to be determined after the acquisition of the site. This order was challenged by the appellants in the writ petition which was dismissed in limine by a learned judge, against whose judgment this appeal is preferred.

2. Attack has been directed against the impugned order on the ground that the Sub Collector had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. Attack has been also directed to the merits of the order on the ground that the Officer had not judicially disposed of the application. Dealing first with the point of jurisdiction, we may extract S.75 (3A) and (3B) of the Act, which are as follows:

"(3A) In an application under sub section (3), the applicant shall offer to deposit, whenever called for eighty-seven and a half per cent of the amount of compensation payable for acquisition of land equal to the extent of the existing kudikidappu subject to a minimum of three cents if within the limits of a city or major municipality or five cents if within the limits of any other municipality or ten cents if in any panchayat area or township.

(3B) An officer authorised by the Government in this behalf may, after collecting the amount referred to in sub-section (3A) from the applicant, acquire the necessary land under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, give possession of the land to the kudikidappukaran and require him to shift to the said land, and thereupon the kudikidappukaran shall be bound to shift to the new site "

We may next turn to R.72 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules as it stood at the relevant time, and before its substitution on 27 111975. The said Rule reads as follows:

72. Form of application for shifting kudikidappukaran. (i) The application to the Government by a holder of land for acquisition of land for shifting a kudikidappukaran shall be in Form No. 35.

(2) Upon receipt of such an application, the officer authorised by the Government in this behalf shall make such enquiry as he may deem fit, and if he is satisfied that the applicant requires the land occupied by the kudikidappu for constructing a building for the applicant's own residence and that the total extent of land held by him on the 1st day of July, 1969, as owner or as tenant was less than one acre, shall require the applicant to deposit eighty-seven and a half per cent of the cost of acquisition of the land to be acquired and to execute an agreement undertaking to pay the same percentage of any increase in the Compensation for the land acquired.

(3) As soon as may after the applicant deposits his share of the cost of acquisition, the officer shall take steps to acquire the necessary land, transfer possession of such land to the kudikidappukaran and require him to shift to the said land.

(4) In choosing me necessary land for acquisition, the following order of preference shall, as far as possible, be observed, namely.

(a) land in the vicinity of the kudikidappu;

(b) land situate within the jurisdiction of the same local authority within whose jurisdiction the kudikidappu is situate;

(c) land situate within the jurisdiction of any adjacent local authority.

(5) The lard to be acquired sh

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top