IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 189 of 2008() --------------------- AA.186/2000 of A.A.(LR),THRISSUR OA.14/1986 of LAND TRIBUNAL, PARAPPANANGADI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4/APPLICANTS 1,3, 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JAFFAR SADHIQ, S/O.HYDER MUHAMMED HAJI, PADIKKAL, MANIKKOTH HOUSE, VELIMUKKU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. JAMEELA, D/O.HYDER MUHAMMED HAJI, PADIKKAL, MANIKKOTH HOUSE, VELIMUKKU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. PATHUMMA, W/O.HYDER MOHAMMED HAJI, PADIKKAL, MANIKKOTH HOUSE, VELIMUKKU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS: SUPPL.APPELLANTS 2 & 4 TO 6 & 2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------- 1. AYYAPPAN, S/O.CHATHANKUTTY, KUMMANTHODY HOUSE, VELIMUKKU AMSOM, VELIMUKKU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. CHEERU, D/O.CHATHANKUTTY, KUMMANTHODY HOUSE, VELIMUKKU AMSOM, VELIMUKKU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. KARIYATHA, S/O.CHATHANKUTTY, KUMMANTHODY HOUSE, VELIMUKKU AMSOM, VELIMUKKU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. KALI, D/O.CHATHANKUTTY, KUMMANTHODY HOUSE, VELIMUKKU AMSOM, VELIMUKKU P.O MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. ABU SABHAH (WRONGLY STATED IN THE ORDER AS ABDUL SAMMED) VELIMUKKU AMSOM, P.O.VELIMUKKU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. N. Krishnan, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 189 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Appellate Authority in A.A.No.186/2000. The case deals with the shifting of “kudikidappu” under section 77 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The order passed by the Appellate Authority is the third round of remand and therefore, it is argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the approach itself of the Appellate Authority is erroneous and it has to be rectified. 2. The point to be considered is whether the proposed site for erecting home-shed is within the distance of one mile from the existing “kudikidappu”. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has taken me through the order of the Land Tribunal, wherein the Land Tribunal has extracted the commissioner's report and pointed out that there is a way and that way is a convenient way and therefore the statutory requirement under section 75(2)(ii) of the Land Reforms Act is substantially complied and therefore shifting application is liable to be allowed. The extracted portion of the Land tribunal's order reveals the existence of the pathway and it has CRP 189/08 -2- been specifically reported that it is used by the local people and there are other by-lanes also. It is also submitted that there are by-lanes and roads in between the A schedule and B schedule properties and therefore one cannot simply brush aside the commissioner's report without any adequate grounds. The Appellate Authority has considered the same in a very light-hearted way and held that there was no convenient way. It is not known what is meant by the convenient way stated by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, it is only desirable that the Appellate Authority is directed to look into the matter afresh and decide the issue in accordance with law. 3. In the circumstances, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Court for fresh consideration. Hence, the Appellate Court is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders on merits in the light of the entire documentary evidence available before the court after hearing both sides. This shall be done as early as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Appellate Authority shall issue notice intimating the date of posting of the case. M.N.Krishnan, Judge. mn. CRP 189/08 -3-