Back
Judges : G.VISWANATHA IYER
THOMAS - Appellant
Versus
PUNNOOSE - Respondent
Case No : C. P. No. 2093 of 1973
Decided On : 11/07/1973
Advocates Appeared :
K. S. Rajamony; For Petitioner T. K. Kurikesu; For Respondent 1 Government Pleader; For Respondent 2
The Kerala Land Reforms Act - Petition to shift kudikidappu - The petitioner challenges the order of the Land Tribunal directing him to shift his kudikidappu to a new site. The court held that the petitioner's application to purchase the kudikidappu had not been allowed, so the bar under S.77(2) proviso did not apply. The court also found that the Act or the Rules do not prohibit the filing of a second application for shifting the kudikidappu. The Land Tribunal's finding that the land where the kudikidappu is situated is bonafide needed for an industrial purpose and that the new site is suitable to erect a homestead was upheld. The court concluded that there was no error of jurisdiction or an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order. The O.P. was dismissed with no costs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the order of the Land Tribunal directing him to shift his kudikidappu to a new site.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's application to purchase the kudikidappu had not been allowed, so the bar under S.77(2) proviso did not apply. The court also found that the Act or the Rules do not prohibit the filing of a second application for shifting the kudikidappu. The Land Tribunal's finding that the land where the kudikidappu is situated is bonafide needed for an industrial purpose and that the new site is suitable to erect a homestead was upheld. The court concluded that there was no error of jurisdiction or an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order. The O.P. was dismissed with no costs.
Issues: The petitioner's grounds for challenging the order were: 1. The petitioner's application to purchase the kudikidappu had been allowed, so an application to shift it was not maintainable. 2. An earlier application for shifting the kudikidappu had been dismissed, so a second application was not maintainable. 3. The Land Tribunal's finding on the need for the land and the suitability of the new site was based on insufficient grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's application to purchase the kudikidappu had not been allowed, so the bar under S.77(2) proviso did not apply. The court also found that the Act or the Rules do not prohibit the filing of a second application for shifting the kudikidappu. The Land Tribunal's finding on the need for the land and the suitability of the new site was upheld.
Final Decision: The O.P. was dismissed with no costs.
1. In this case the petitioner challenges Ext. P3 order of the Land Tribunal directing him to shift bis kudikidappu to a new site mentioned in the order. The order is attacked on three grounds. Firstly it is contended that the petitioner's application to purchase the kudikidappu has been allowed and so an application to shift it h not maintainable. But it is not disputed that the certificate of purchase has not been so far issued to him and so the bar under S.77(2) proviso will not apply. The second ground is that an earlier application for shifting the kudikidappu has been dismissed under Ext. P2 order and hence a second application is not maintainable. The Act or the Rules do not prohibit the filing of a second application and the provisions of res judicata and other simitar provisions of CPC. do not apply to the proceedings under the Act. So this ground is also not sustainable Lastly it is contended that the Land Tribunal has on insufficient ground held that the land where the Kudikidappu is situate is bonafide needed for an industrial purpose of the respondent and that the new site is suitable to erect a homestead. The finding on those matters are based on the evidence let in the case. The area where the kudikidappu is now situate is a commercial locality. The respondent is running a saw mill in the same property west of the place where the kudikidappu is situate. If the kudikidappukaran purchases ten cents around his existing kudikidappu even the access to the saw mill will be closed. The respondent has stated that he has taken a loan from the Bank to expand the saw mill. The Land Tribunal has chosen to believe bis case and I cannot in these proceedings hold that there was no material warranting a conclusion that the land is bonafide required by the respondent, for an industrial purpose. Similarly, as regards the new site the Land Tribunal has on taking into consideration the commissioner's report and the evidence, come to the conclusion that it is fit for erecting a homestead. It cannot be challenged.
2. In this view there is no error of jurisdiction or an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order. O.P. fails. Dismissed. No costs.
Dismissed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
