IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 1148 of 2000(E) ------------------------------- OA.217/1987 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPLICANT : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- THOMMY JOSEPH, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ALUVA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VERONICA, W/O.THOMMY, MANGALASSERY HOUSE, ALUVA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY (LR), GOVT. SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKAR - R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J ------------------------------ C.R.P. No.1148 of 2000 ------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 ORDER The applicant in O.A.No.217 of 1987 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Perumbavoor is the revision petitioner. The Land Tribunal dismissed the Original Application finding that the applicant is not a Kudikidappukaran. The order passed by the Land Tribunal was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in A.A.No.45 of 1996. Hence this revision. 2. The applicant claims that 20 cents of land and the residence therein are in his possession and enjoyment from the year 1952 as per Ext.A1, rent deed. In Ext.A1 the rent fixed is Rs.5/- per month. From Ext.A1 it is clear that the applicant was inducted by the respondent as the tenant of the building. The learned Tribunal also noted that no Commission was taken out to assess the cost of construction of the building as to whether it exceeds Rs.750/- or not. According to the applicant, he continued to occupy the building and that he has no other C.R.P. No.1148 of 2000 2 property on which he could erect a homestead. Therefore he is entitled to Kudikidappu right. The first respondent opposed the application. It is contended on her behalf that the extent of property in the possession of the applicant is 20 cents, that he is not in occupation of the hut right from 1952 and that he is residing in other building in Mookkannoor Panchayath which belonged to him. Exts.B4 and B5 are the copies of the assessment registers of the building which according to the first respondent is in occupation of the applicant. The respondent also contended that from the materials on record, there is no evidence to show that the applicant, his wife and children had resided in the plaint schedule property after 1952. The Land Tribunal considered the issues raised by the parties very elaborately. The Land Tribunal relied on Exts.B4 and B5 and concluded that the applicant is having his own residential building at Mookkannoor Panchayath. The Land Tribunal also relied on Ext.B7 to prove that the applicant and his family are residents of Ward No.V of Mookkannoor Panchayath. Ext.B6 voters list also go to show that he is a permanent resident voter of Angamaly C.R.P. No.1148 of 2000 3 Assembly constituency. The Land Tribunal also relied on Ext.A3 judgment which shows that the applicant had land in Ezhattumugham (Nidhiri Estate) during the period 1978. 3. The Land Tribunal also considered in detail the oral evidence tendered by the parties and also examined as to whether the applicant and his family have resided in the plaint schedule building from 1968 till date. The Land Tribunal concluded that neither the applicant nor his family had been residing in the plaint schedule building for the statutory period. Therefore, it is evident that he does not come within the purview of definition of Kudikidappukaran under Explanation 11(2)A of section 2(25) of KLR Act. The applicant had also raised a contention that he is the Janmi of the property. The Land Tribunal considered the inconsistent contentions raised by the applicant. After an elaborate consideration of all the facts and evidence, the Land Tribunal held that the applicant is not a Kudikidappukaran. C.R.P. No.1148 of 2000 4 4. The Appellate Court also considered all the evidence on record, re-appreciated the evidence and concluded that the Land Tribunal had taken into consideration all facts and figures in arriving at a decision and held that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court. 5. I have gone through the impugned orders and records and I am satisfied that the findings entered by the authorities below are correct and properly recorded. I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the authorities below. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE pac C.R.P. No.1148 of 2000 5 HARUN-UL-RASHID, J C.R.P. No.1148/2000 ORDER 13th day of June, 2008