IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 932 of 2007() ------------------------------- AA.13/1997 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), ALAPPUZHA. OA. NO.939/1981 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, PARASSERIL, PULIMCUNNU MURI, PULIMCUNNU VILLAGE. 2. V.CHELLAMMA, PARASSERIL, PULIMCUNNU MURI, PULIMCUNNU VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/APPLICANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. N.S.S.KARAYOGAM NO.1423, PULIMCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKAR R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.932 of 2007 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011. ORDER Order dated 31.03.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority (LR), Alappuzha in A.A.No.13 of 1997 dismissing the appeal preferred by petitioners is under challenge. Petitioners, challenging the impugned order came with this civil revision with a delay of 882 days which I was inclined to condone after hearing both sides. 2. The proceedings started on an application filed by the 1st respondent under Section 77(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, “the Act”) by virtue of right claimed by the 1st respondent under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.75 of the said Act for shifting the kudikidappu of petitioners to an alternative site. 1st respondent filed that application in the year, 1973 and after various rounds of litigation the matter came to this Court by way of revision in C.R.P.No.1644 of 1986. In the course of argument, petitioners submitted before this Court in the said civil revision that if ten cents can be measured and given to the petitioners in the area offered, they will have no objection (obviously for shifting). The said submission was recorded and this Court disposed of the civil revision on 06.11.1987 setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remitting the case to the Land Tribunal to measure the area with the aid of the Taluk Surveyor at the expense of the landlord after notice to the parties and CRP No.932/2007 2 handover ten cents to the petitioners. The Tribunal was directed to issue patta to the petitioners. Pursuant to that order the matter was again considered by the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal deputed authorised officer to measure the alternative site offered by the 1st respondent. The authorised officer submitted his report. In the meantime, a sale deed was also executed in favour of petitioners concerning the alternative site, it is submitted. Based on the report of the authorised officer, Land Tribunal passed order for shifting kudikidappu to the alternative site. That order was challenged before the Appellate Authority (LR) in A.A.No.13 of 1997. Though various contentions were raised before the Appellate Authority (LR), that Authority rejected the contentions referring to the submission made on behalf of petitioners in C.R.P.No.1644 of 1986. The Appellate Authority also rejected the contention of petitioners that the alternative site offered falls short of the required ten cents. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that even the application for shifting filed by the 1st respondent was not maintainable since going by Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.75 and Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.77 of the Act the application for shifting could be filed only by a natural person. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Akhila Kerala Vala Samudaya Samithi (1979 KLT 1) where it is held that an artificial person like a company cannot file an application under Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.75 of the Act. It is also contended by the learned counsel that report of the Revenue Inspector will show that the alternative site offered falls short of ten cents. CRP No.932/2007 3 4. Learned counsel for 1st respondent has brought to my attention the decision of the Supreme Court in Mother Superior, Infant Jesus Fransican Clarist Convent, Engandiyur v. Ambi Kunjumon ((1996) 7 SCC 173) to contend that the word 'person' referred to in Sub-secs. (2) and (3) of Sec.75 and Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.77 of the Act includes a company as well, as defined in Sec.2(43) of the Act. It is also contended that in view of the earlier proceedings petitioners are not entitled at this stage to contend that the application for shifting is not maintainable. Learned counsel submitted that if the alternative site offered to petitioners excluding the pathway reported by the authorised officer is short of ten cents, 1st respondent is prepared to make necessary amends and allot ten cents to the petitioners. 5. On the legal question it is pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners that the Supreme Court has not decided the issue. But, I find myself unable to accept that contention. After referring to the definition of 'person' in Sec.2(43) of the Act viz-a-viz the application made under Sub-secs. (2) and (3) of Sec.75 and Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.77 of the said Act it is held that Sec.2(43) of the Act defines the word 'person' which includes a company, etc. Therefore the society which is registered under the Societies Registration Act doing charitable work, viz., orphanage, etc. is held to be a 'person' within the meaning of Sec.2(43) of the Act and thereby under Sub-sec.(3) read with Sub- sec.(2) of Sec.75 of the Act appellant in that case was found entitled to the land CRP No.932/2007 4 to construct a building for an orphanage. In the light of the above decision contention of learned counsel that the 1st defendant could not maintain the application cannot be accepted. 6. I must also bear in mind that in the earlier proceedings maintainability of the application preferred by the 1st respondent was upheld as is evident from the order in C.R.P.No.1644 of 1986. The Land Tribunal was directed to ascertain the extent of alternative site and if it is ten cents, was directed to issue patta in favour of petitioners after ordering shifting. In such circumstances also contention of petitioners that 1st respondent could not make an application under Sub-secs.(2) and (3) of Sec.75 read with Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.77 of the Act has to fail. 7. Now to the rest of the argument centering round availability of ten cents for the alternative site; my attention is drawn to the report submitted by the authorized officer where it would appear that excluding the way, alternative site offered falls short of ten cents. In that regard I record the submission made by learned counsel for 1st respondent that 1st respondent is prepared to make necessary amends and will ensure that the alternative site allotted to the petitioners is ten cents in extent. That submission allays the apprehension of petitioners. 8. I must notice that application for shifting was filed by the respondents in the year, 1973 and still the proceeding has not culminated, there being challenges at various levels. I referred to the question which this Court CRP No.932/2007 5 considered in C.R.P.No.1644 of 1986. Now petitioners come with yet another contention that the application filed by the 1st respondent itself is not maintainable which in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, I found, is totally unsustainable. Resultantly, recording the submission of learned counsel for 1st respondent that clear ten cents will be provided as alternative site to the petitioners, this civil revision is dismissed. The 1st respondent shall make up the deficiency if any in the extent of land and based on that, the authorised officer shall prepare a report and plan. For that ten cents the Land Tribunal shall order shifting and issue purchase certificate in favour of petitioners after shifting as directed in the order in C.R.P.No.1644 of 1986. I.A.No.2649 of 2007 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks