IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 417 of 2005() --------------------- AA.115/1981 of A.A.(LR),KOZHIKODE OA.216/1978 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN A.A. & RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 O.A.: ------------------ 1. SOMATHI, NADUNGOTTUR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. CHANDRAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTNO.4 IN A.A. & PETITIONER AND 4TH RESPONDENT IN O.A. & STATE: ------------- 1. KOMMADATH CHANDRAN, NEDUNGOTTOOR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. R.VIJAYAN, S/O.S.K.PATEL, CHANSOLI, THANE MELAPUR ROAD, MUMBAI. BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN FOR R1 SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN FOR R1 SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. THOMAS JOHN AMBUKEN -R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. 1180 OF 2005 IN C.R.P. NO. 417 OF 2005 DISMISSED 4.6.2008 Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 417 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The landlords are the revision petitioners. The challenge is against the judgment in A.A. No.115 of 1981 of the Appellate Authority(LR), Kozhikode. The applicant before the Land Tribunal is the first respondent herein. The revision petitioners are respondents 2 and 3 in O.A. No.216 of 1978. 2. The Original Application was filed for purchase of kudikidappu right. In the application, the applicant stated that the small homestead in question was constructed by him in the year 1955 on permission from RW.1, the guardian of the legal heirs of one Kausalya. The property belonged to Kausalya. According to the applicant, Kausalya died in the year 1947 and in the year 1955, RW.1 who was looking after the affairs of the family permitted him to put up the homestead. The respondents' contention on the contrary was that the building in question was constructed by the landlords and that the land in question was entrusted by C.R.P.NO.417/2005 2 the landlords to the mother of the applicant who constructed the homestead in the year 1946. They contended that no permission was granted to the applicant who is occupying the building and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim kudikidappu right in respect of the property in question. The petitioner was examined as PW.1. According to him, he became the head of the family in the year 1952 at the age of 19 since he lost his father at the age of five. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners brought to my attention the report of the authorised officer. It is stated in the report that the year of construction is 1946. The authorised officer has further reported that the homestead was put up by the mother of the applicant. On going through the statements in the report, it is difficult to comprehend the data furnished by the authorised officer. He has inspected the property in the year 1978. There is no basis for the assessment he made regarding the year of construction of the building. The report cannot be relied on for the purpose of deciding the age of the building. It can be either 1946 or 1955. The statement regarding entrustment of the property to the mother of the applicant is also without any basis or details. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant/first respondent C.R.P.NO.417/2005 3 contended before me that the landlords did not enter the box to adduce evidence, nor did they adduce any documentary evidence to prove that the building was put up by them and that the entrustment was made to the mother of the applicant and not to the applicant. Counsel also contended that going by the available evidence, it can be seen that the contention taken by the applicant that he had constructed the building and continued to occupy the same is not controverted. Counsel also contended that in any case alternatively, his case is covered by Explanation II A to Section 2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. According to counsel , the applicant was in occupation of the land and the dwelling house during the statutory period fixed therein (1968 to 1.1.1970). The landlords have no case that the applicant was not in occupation of the homestead during the said statutory period. 5. The uncontroverted evidence tendered by the applicant would show that the applicant was residing in the homestead continuously from 1955 onwards. It has also come out in evidence that he has no other house to live in and that he does not own or possess any other property other than the property in question. In the circumstances, the finding of the Appellate Authority that it is justifiable to allow the applicant to purchase the kudikidappu and the appurtenant land in his favour does not call for any C.R.P.NO.417/2005 4 interference. It is made clear that the applicant is entitled to purchase land only the extent prescribed under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P.NO.417/2005 5 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 417/2005 O R D E R 2ND JUNE, 2008 C.R.P.NO.417/2005 6