The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the words 'the person in possession of the land' in sub-s. (2) of S.75 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and the application of principles of interpretation to determine the meaning of the words in the context of the Act.

Headnote:
person in possession of the land - Kerala Land Reforms Act - S.75(2) - The court discussed the interpretation of the words 'the person in possession of the land' in sub-s. (2) of S.75 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The court analyzed the meaning of the words in the context of the Act and referred to relevant provisions such as S.2(43) and S.98A. The court also discussed the principles of interpretation and referred to the decision in Rev. Fr. Mathew Fabian v. Additional Land Tribunal, Quilon & others 1973 KLT. 423 and Akhila Kerala Vala Samudhaya Samithy v. State of Kerala 1975 KLT. 123 to support its interpretation.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a religious institution, sought to shift three kudikidappus to a new site belonging to the institution under sub-s. (2) of S.75 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The respondents objected, arguing that the institution is not a 'person' within the meaning of S.75(2) of the Act. The court considered the interpretation of the relevant provisions and the previous decision in Rev. Fr. Mathew Fabian v. Additional Land Tribunal, Quilon & others 1973 KLT. 423.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner, as a religious institution, is entitled to have the kudikidappus of the respondents shifted. The court set aside the orders of the Land Tribunal and directed the Land Tribunal to pass final orders under S.77 of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the words 'the person in possession of the land' in sub-s. (2) of S.75 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and whether the petitioner, a religious institution, falls within the definition of 'person' in the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied principles of interpretation and analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act, including S.2(43) and S.98A. The court also referred to previous decisions to support its interpretation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Original Petition and ordered the shifting of the kudikidappus of the respondents. The court set aside the orders of the Land Tribunal and directed the Land Tribunal to pass final orders under S.77 of the Act.

Judgment :-

1. The meaning to be attributed to the words "the person in possession of the land" occurring in sub-s. (2) of S.75 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, for short, the Act, is the question that arises in this Original Petition, a case which has been referred to a Division Bench by Bhaskaran J., on the submission of counsel that the decision in Rev. Fr. Mathew Fabian v. Additional Land Tribunal, Quilon & others 1973 KLT. 423 requires reconsideration.

2. The petitioner is the Thrikkaruva Kuttiyazhikom Devaswom represented by by its Joint Secretaries. They sought the shifting of three kudikidappus situated in the land belonging to the Devaswom to a new site belonging to the Devaswom under sub-s. (2) of S.75 of the Act. Respondents 1 and 2, the kudikidappukars, objected on various grounds: (1) The application was lacking in bona fides, (2) the alternate site offered was unsuitable for erecting of homestead and (3) that the Devaswom is not a "person" within the meaning of that expression in S.75(2) of the Act. The contentions of the 1st and 2nd respondents on points (1) and (2) above have been found against by the Land Tribunal but the 3rd contention has been accepted by reason of the ruling in Rev. Fr. Mathew Fabian v. Additional Land Tribunal, Quilon & others 1973 KLT. 423. The question that arose before the court in that decision was whether an application made by a religious institution for the purpose of expansion of the church compound and of a cemetery would fall under S.75(2) of the Act. It was held that the section would not apply and the following observation in the judgment has been relied on in support of the submission that this application by the Devaswom is also not maintainable:

"It is obvious that it was not in the contemplation of the legislature when it enacted S.75 (2)(a) that its provision should be availed of by a religious institution for the purpose of expansion of the church compound or of its cemetery; the intention manifestly is that the benefit of the said clause should be available only to private individuals including families for the purpose of construction of buildings for their use."

This view has been taken on the wording of S.75(2)(a). We shall extract S.75(2)(a), (b) and (c):

"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (1), the person in possession of the land on which there is a homestead or but (hereinafter in this sub-section referred to as the landlord) in the occupation as a kudikidappukaran may, if he bona fide requires the land

(a) for building purposes for himself or any member of his family including major sons and daughters; or

(b) for purposes in connection with a town planning scheme approved by the competent authority; or

(c) for any industrial purpose, require the kudikidappukaran, to shift to a new site belonging to him subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i) the landholder shall pay to the kudikidappukaran the price of the homestead, if any erected by the kudikidappukaran;

(ii) the new site shall be fit for erecting a homestead and shall be within a distance of one mile from the existing kudikidappu;

(iii) the extent of new site shall be the extent of the existing kudikidappu subject to a minimum of three cents if within the limits of a city or a major municipality, five cents if within the limits of any other municipality and ten cents if in any panchayat area or township;

(iv) the landlord shall transfer ownership and possession of the new site to the kudikidappukaran and shall pay to him the reasonable cost of shifting the kudikidappu to the new site.

Where the above conditions are complied with the kudikidappukaran shall be bound.' to shift to the new site."

3. When "the person in possession of the land" is read with "if he bonafide requires the land for building purposes for himself or any member of his family including major sons and daughters" unless 'person' is read distributively as applicable to all those that have been included in the definition of 'person'

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1975 Supreme(Ker) 180

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the words 'the person in possession of the land' in sub-s. (2) of S.75 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and the application of principles of interpretation to determine the meaning of the words in the context of the Act.

Cases Referred (1)