The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adherence to procedural rules and the admissibility of evidence in land tribunal proceedings, emphasizing the limitations of inspection reports and the need for de novo consideration in determining kudikidappukari eligibility.

1. The respondent in an application before the Land Tribunal for purchase of kudikidappu is the revision petitioner. According to the applicant, she is a kudikidappukari entitled to apply for purchase the kudikidappu under S.80 B of the Land Reforms Act. On that basis, an application was put in before the Land Tribunal. The revision petitioner who was respondent, took objection to this application mainly on two grounds. The first objection was that the applicant is not a kudikidappukari. The building that she is in occupation, was constructed about 10 years back at a cost of Rs. 2,500 and secondly that the respondent is having only less than 1 acre and therefore, the application for purchase of kudikidappu is not maintainable before the expiry of two years provided for the respondent to make an application before the Government for acquisition of other land to which the kudikidappu may be shifted. The Land Tribunal after this objection was received, directed an inquiry to be made by the Revenue Inspector as regards the value of the building. The Revenue Inspector submitted the report dated 28-1-1971 in which the value of the building was stated to be Rs. 300/-. This assessment was objected to by the revision petitioner, and the revision petitioner, by a separate application, moved the Land Tribunal for issuing a commission to any advocate to make a local inspection and submit a report as regards the value of the building. That was allowed. The Advocate-Commissioner made a local inspection and submitted a report and an account on 3-3-1971. As per his account, the building is about 6 years old and worth Rs. 809.50. When this report was received, the Land Tribunal even without any motion from the applicant passed an order on 4-3-1971 which reads thus:

"Petitioner present. Respondent through Advocate. Commission report received (valued more than Rs. 750)- Land Tribunal to inspect the site and house".

and the case was adjourned to 22-3-1971. On 22-3-1971 in the order sheet (main, tained as per R.103 of the Tenancy R.1970) the Land Tribunal made the following order:

"Respondent through Advocate. Land Tribunal to inspect on 7 41971. Adjourned to 12 41971". On 12-4-1971 this is what is entered in the order sheet:

"Petitioner present. Respondent through Advocate. Land Tribunal inspected. The value of the house at the time of construction is less than Rs. 750. Petition for shifting not filed in time. Petitioner is a kudikidappukaran. Special Revenue Inspector will inspect and value 10 cents of land in the present kudikidappu with all details. Adjourned to 29 41971".

Again, this is what is written on 29-4-1971 in the order sheet:

"Petitioner present. Respondent through Advocate. Special Revenue Inspector's report received. There is objection. Adjourned to 3151971".

On 3151971 the respondent filed objection to the Revenue Inspector's second report. On the same day the Land Tribunal passed the order allowing the petition for purchase of kudikidappu, and directed the deposit of the instalments as provided for under the Act. Against this order an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Land Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. It is against this that the present revision petition has been filed.

2. From what has been stated above it can be seen that the Land Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a kudikidappukari on the basis of the local inspection made by the Land Tribunal. In this connection I may also state that as per the Land Tribunal's local inspection report the building is worth Rs. 570/-and deducting certain amount for depreciation the value will be only round about Rs. 300/-. It is this inspection report that has been made use of by the Land Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the building was valued less than Rs. 750/-at the time of construction and that the petitioner therefore is a kudikidappukari. The Land Tribunal before making the local i