Collector has no jurisdiction to set aside Land Tribunal's decisions under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, highlighting misuse of authority and breach of natural justice.

1 The Original petition is to quash Ext. P13 proceedings of the District Collector, Ernakulam, dated 26-5-1990. The facts necessary for the disposal of the Original Petition are the following :- Petitioner is the owner of a land in Sy. No. 199/4, 199/8 and 200/1. There were five kudikidappukars in the property. Petitioner required the land for construction of a building for his own residence and so he filed five applications before the Land Tribunal, Palluruthy as O. A. Nos. 307 to 311 of 1975 for shifting of the kudikidappus under S.75(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The applications were later transferred to the Vypeen Land Tribunal. The contention of the kudikidappukars in these applications was that there is no bona fides in the applications and that the distance of the alternate sites offered is more than one mile and accordingly the condition mentioned in S.75(2) is not satisfied. There were two reports by two Revenue Inspectors regarding the distance of the alternate site from the kudikidappu site, one report saying that it is beyond one mile and the second report saying that it is within one mile. The second report was by one Jameela who was a Revenue inspector at that time and who later became the Land Tribunal. Overruling the objections of the kudikidappukars, these applications were allowed by separate orders dated 27-2-78 which are produced as Ext. P1 series in this O. P. Against the above orders, 5 appeals were preferred by the kudikidappukars as L R. A S. Nos. 500 to 504 of 1978 before the Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. During the pendency of the appeals the kudikidappukars died and their legal representatives were impleaded. By Ext. P2 series orders dated 6-6-1981 the appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Authority and the shifting orders passed by the Land Tribunal were confirmed. Against the orders two kudikidappukars in O A Nos. 310 and 311 of 1975 filed C. R. P. Nos. 1307 and 1311 of 1982 before this Court under S.103 of the Act. By Ext. P3 orders dated 23-7-86 this Court also confirmed the orders of shifting charges were increased from that awarded by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority. Thus the orders of the Land Tribunal allowing shifting of kudikidappus became final in respect of these five kudikidappukars.

2 The trouble of the land owner started after that. He executed the necessary documents regarding the alternate site and filed applications for execution of the orders. On 15-4-1986 notice was issued to the kudikidappukars to shift from the kudikidappus to the alternate site on or before 23-4-1986. On 21-4-1986, the legal representatives filed objections to execution
in O. A.Nos.307 to 309 of 1975. On 25-4-86, O. P. No. 2912 of 1986 was filed by persons claiming to be kudikidappukars in the aforesaid O. As. for a mandamus restraining the Land Tribunal from executing the orders and the shifting was stayed by this Court. Ultimately by Ext. P4 dated 27-6-1988 the Original Petition was dismissed. Later, they moved the Land Board under S.101(2)(d) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for transfer of the cases from the Land Tribunal to another Land Tribunal. It seems Smt. Jameela the Revenue Inspector who filed the report in the case had become the Land Tribunal by that time and she was the Land Tribunal, Vypeen who had to execute the orders. By Ext. P5 order dated 27-2-89 the Land Board dismissed the applications against which C.R.P. 850 of 1989 was filed before this Court. By Ext. P6 order dated 7-4-89 that C. R. P was dismissed. In the meanwhile, on 13-12-88, 5 persons claiming to be the legal representatives of the kudikidappukars in certain cases filed applications to get themselves impleaded and challenged the orders of the Land Tribunal allowing shifting. On 14-12-88 those applications were dismissed by the Land Tribunal against which five appeals were filed before the Appellate Authority and the execution of the orders of shifting was stayed. After the dismissal of the five appeals C. R. P.