IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 2443 of 1999(E) ----------------------- AA.84/1995 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS),THRISSUR FROM O.A.63/1992 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, VYPEEN .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN A.A.84/1995 AND APPLICANT IN O.A.63/1992: --------------------------------------------------- T.V.NARAYANAN, VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMPADAPPU, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.MURALI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN A.A.84/1995 AND RESPONDENTS IN O.A.63/1992: --------------------------------------------------- 1. C.V.RAGHUVARAN, CHAMBAKKAL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. C.V.THILOTHAMA, CHAMBAKKAL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. C.V.KAMALAKSHY,CHAMBAKKAL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. C.V.LEELA, CHAMBAKKAL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. C.V. KOMALAVALLY, CHAMBAKKAL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J ====================== C.R.P.No.2443 of 1999 ========================= Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008 ORDER The applicant in O.A.63/92 on the file of Land Tribunal, Vypeen, is the revision petitioner herein. The appeal was filed as A.A.84/95 before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur was dismissed confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal passed orders finding that the revision petitioner is not entitled to purchase of Kudikidappu right. 2. The applicant preferred the original application for the purchase of kudikidappu in and around his homestead situated in survey No.909/2 of Palluruthy Village. The first respondent had filed a statement stating that he has no objection in the application for purchasing seven cents of land surrounding his homestead. Respondents 2 to 5 who claim to be co-owners of the property opposing the application stating that the revision petitioner is not entitled to purchase kudikidappu right since he is not a kudikidappukaran as defined under Section 2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Tribunal, after considering the C.R.P.No.2443/1999 2 facts and evidence, dismissed the application finding that the applicant is not entitled to purchase of kudikidappu right and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in the appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contented that the first respondent, who is also one of the co- owners of the property, is competent to give permission to the revision petitioner to occupy the kudikidappu and that the homestead belongs to him. According to him no other questions arise for consideration and the revision petitioner is entitled to purchase the kudikidappu right. He had also stated that there are other 21 kudikidappukars in the property and the application submitted by some of the kudikidappukars are allowed based on the consent statement given by the first respondent. 4. The counsel also draw my attention to Section 78 of the Land Reforms Act, which stipulates that kudikidappu is heritable but not alienable except to any person mentioned in sub-clause (a) sub-clause (b) of Clause(i) of Sub-Section(1) of Section 75. Section 75 of the Act provides that no kudikidappukaran shall be liable to be evicted from his C.R.P.No.2443/1999 3 kudikidappu except on the following grounds, namely:- (i) that he has alienated his right of kudikidappu to a person other than- (a) a member of his family: or (b) a person who has no other homestead or any land in possession, either as owner or as tenant, on which he could erect a homestead and whose annual income does not exceed two thousand rupees: 5. It is contended that the applicant satisfied Clause (b) of Section 75 and that his annual income is below two thousand rupees per annum. The Tribunal did not consider the question whether the applicant's annual income does not exceed two thousand rupees or not. The Appellate Authority considered the question and observation was made based on his job that his annual income exceeds rupees two thousand. The Appellate Authority also observed, relying on notice issued in another case that the applicant is owning other properties. Based on the findings and observations of the Appellate Authority, it is argued that the same is without any basis and therefore requires reconsideration. C.R.P.No.2443/1999 4 6. I find that the Land Tribunal did not consider these questions and the Appellate Authority had arrived at a conclusion without sufficient proof. Besides these questions, several other contentions are raised by both sides regarding the eligibility of the applicant to claim kudikidappu. So the entire facts are to be re-appreciated in the light of the contentions raised by the parties. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The case is remanded to the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam, for de novo consideration. The parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence, if any. The case shall be decided within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE dvs