KOCHUTHOMMEN THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this case is whether the order Ext. P4 passed by the Tahsildar holding that the 4th respondent can be registered as a kudikidappukaran under S.80 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and the appellate order Ext. P6 confirming it are liable to be set aside in a proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The fourth respondent applied under S.80 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for registering him as a kudikidappukaran with respect to a homestead said to be in survey No. 7/23 in Thiruvan vandoor village. The petitioner is the owner of that property and he objected. One of the contentions of the petitioner was that the 4th respondent owned 14 cents of land in survey No. 223/5 in Pandanad village and that the fourth respondent was therefore not a kudikidappukaran within the meaning of S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

(3.) The 3rd respondent who passed Ext. P4 order came to the conclusion that the 4th respondent was not the proprietor of the land which, it was alleged, was set apart to him in the family partition deed of 1117 ME. and therefore negatived the contentions of the petitioner. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that "right over 14 cents of land had been conferred on the respondent in 1117 ME. as per the family partition deed". The appellate authority however came to the further conclusion that he has no possession of the land and therefore held that he is a kudikidappukaran within the meaning of S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. S.2(25) is in these terms: