The central legal point established is that the scope of S.75(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, does not extend to the purpose of expanding a church compound or cemetery.

1. The writ petitioner is the Vicar of the St. Antony's Church, Vady, Quilon. The prayer in the writ petition is for quashing the orders Exts. P1 to P6 passed by the Additional Land Tribunal No. II, Quilon turning down the petitioner's request for directing respondents Nos. 2 to 7 herein who are six kudikidappukars in occupation of homesteads situated in a property belonged to the petitioner's church, to shift to the alternative site offered by the petitioner. The ground put forward by the petitioner in support of his prayer for shifting the kudikidappukars is that the lands forming the sites of the kudikidappu are required by the church for widening a cemetery and for a contemplated expansion of the church. The Land Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the new sites offered to the kudikidappukars are not suitable for locating their homesteads.

2. It is argued by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that this finding entered by the Land Tribunal is based mainly on the results of a local inspection conducted by it and the petitioner was not given due opportunity to adduce other evidence concerning the suitability of the alternative sites.

3. I do not consider it necessary to go into the merits of the above contention raised on behalf of the writ petitioner because, in my view, the prayer of the petitioner for shifting the kudikidappu has, in any event, to fail, for the reason that the purpose mentioned in the application for shifting is not one falling within the scope of S.75 (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The avernments contained in all the six applications filed by the petitioner for shifting the kudikidappukars are identical and the ground mentioned in support of the prayer for shifting is Neither the expansion of the compound of the church nor the widening or the expansion of the existing cemetery would fall within the scope of S.75 (2) (a) of the Act wherein the purpose mentioned is "for building purposes for himself or any member of his family including major sons and daughters". It is obvious that it was not in the contemplation of the legislature when it enacted S.75 (2) (a) that its provisions 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. The applications filed by the petitioners cannot also be sustained under clause (b) or (c) of S.75 since the provisions of those clauses are not at all attracted to this case. In the circumstances the rejection of the applications by the Land Tribunal, though made on different ground, does not call for any interference by this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. Nothing contained in this judgment will preclude the petitioner from seeking relief before the Land Tribunal under S.75 (4) of the Act, in case circumstances justifying resort to the said provisions do exist,

4. Subject to the above observations the original petition is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs.

Dismissed.