MARIAKUTTY Vs. CHUMMARU UTHUPPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in O.A. No. 1819 of 1976 of the Land Tribunal, Kottayam, is the petitioner. He applied for purchase of kudikidappu which was resisted by the land owners on the ground that the applicant was not a kudikidappukaran. The Land Tribunal had found that the building in question was a hut and that the applicant was a kudikidappukaran. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal passed the final order on 30-11-1977 fixing the purchase price, land available for purchase etc. The respondents filed an appeal against the order dated 30-11-1977 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority as L.R.A.S. No. 2406 of 1977. The Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Land Tribunal, allowed the appeal and dismissed the application for purchase. This CRP. is directed against the said order.

(2.) From the statement of facts in the CRP. the background of the litigation between the parties will not be clear. The petitioner's husband is occupying the building. There is dispute whether the building occupied by the petitioner here is the same as the one occupied by her husband. There was a Rent Control Petition as B.R C.O P No. 26 of 1972 to evict the husband from the building. In that case the husband claimed that he was a kudikidappukaran. This question was referred to the Munsiff - Land Tribunal, Alleppey. The Tribunal found that the building was not a hut and that the husband was not a kudikidappukaran. This finding was accepted by the Rent Control Court and eviction was ordered in August, 1976, which order became final.

(3.) The petitioner's counsel before me submits that the rent control order is not binding on the petitioner since the petitioner is occupying a building different from the one which was the subject - matter of the rent control proceedings. The point forcefully urged before me by the petitioner's counsel is that the earlier order passed by the Land Tribunal on 31-10-1977 upholding the plea of the petitioner that she was a kudikidappukars had become final since that was not appealed against. The appeal before the appellate authority is directed only against the order dated 30-11-1977 and hence the appellate order setting aside the earlier finding of the Land Tribunal dated 31-10-1977 is passed without jurisdiction.