IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 3056 of 2001() ---------------------- AA.58/1994 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS), KANNUR OA.115/1991 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------ PANAPRON YOUSUF, R/AT PUTHIYAPURAYIL, OF MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, AVILAM VILAKOTTU DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.SUDHEER SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENTSAPPELLANT/PETITIONER/STATE: ------------- 1. SELVARAJ, S/O. CHELLAKKAN, R/AT KOODALATTU, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, AVILAM VILAKKOTTU DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY , SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHYSON P. MANGUZHA -FOR R2 SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R.1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 3056 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The respondent in O.A. No.115 of 1991 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Kuthuparamba is the revision petitioner. O.A. No.115 of 1991 was filed by the applicant/respopndent claiming kudikidapu right over the property in dispute. The application was dismissed by the Land Tribunal, but the order of the Land Tribunal was reversed by the Appellate Authority and hence, this revision by the landlord. 2. Both parties set up rival title in respect of the building in question. According to the applicant who was examined as PW.1, he had constructed a hut in the property which was reconstructed with the help of Perumbunna Church Mission League workers and Mother Superior of Archana Hospital. The Land Tribunal observed that the rent of the building at the time of construction was Rs.10/- per month and the cost at the time of construction was assessed as Rs.12,800/-. The Land Tribunal found that there was no reliable evidence to show that the building was C.R.P.NO.3056/2001 2 constructed by the petitioner. The Special Revenue Inspector valued the building at Rs.12,800/- at the time of construction and the monthly rent at Rs.9/-. The Land Tribunal appreciated the evidence on record and concluded that the petitioner failed to prove that he had constructed the building in question. If the petitioner is unable to prove that the building is constructed by him, the only possible result that would ensue is to dismiss the application for kudikidappu which the Land Tribunal rightly did. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Appellant Authority (LR), Kannur. The Appellate Authority relied on the report of the Special Revenue Inspector who had reported that the building in the property was constructed by the appellant therein. The Appellate Authority did not go into the contentions of the parties, but simply allowed the application for kudikidappu stating that the Special Revenue Inspector reported so. 3. I find that the reason stated by the Appellate Authority for allowing the application is not just and fair. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to reconsider the matter afresh on the basis of the materials produced by the parties and enter a finding as to whether the kudikidappukaran is the owner of the building in question. The Appellate Authority shall issue notice to both parties and shall dispose of the matter within a period of six months from C.R.P.NO.3056/2001 3 the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P.NO.3056/2001 4 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 3056/2001 O R D E R 11th July, 2008