SOURI FRANCIS Vs. PARAMESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a petition under S.75(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1 of 1964, for shifting a kudikidappu owned by the first respondent situated in schedule A to the petition on the ground, that he bona fide required the land for constructing a building for his own residence. The extent of the land is 59 cents. The kudikidappu is situate in the north - eastern corner of the plot. The petitioner offered another site, which is described in the B schedule to the petition, in lieu of the kudikidappu now existing. The Land Tribunal allowed the petition upholding the petitioner's claim that the land was required by him bona fide for the purpose of his own residence.

(2.) The respondents filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Land Tribunal, that the landlord required the land bona fide for constructing a residence for himself. The Appellate Authority, however, held, that since the extent of the property, excluding 10 cents which the respondents are entitled to purchase, is 49 cents with a road - frontage of 149 links and the kudikidappu is situate in the north - eastern corner of the property a building can be constructed for the residence of the landlord even without shifting the kudikidappu. The Appellate Authority, for the above reason, reversed the decision of the Land Tribunal and dismissed the petition for shifting. It is this order that is challenged by the landlord petitioner.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that once it is found by the authorities that there is a bona fide requirement of the land for the construction of a building for the landlord the prayer for shifting should be allowed, and, it is not for the Appellate Authority to say whether the balance portion of the property is sufficient for the construction of the building. According to the revision petitioner, in deciding whether the land is required for the construction of the building the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority should take into account the status of the parties, their position in life and also the location of the land. The extent of the land in such cases should also be fixed taking into account the area that is likely to be occupied by the building to be constructed, and assuring that after the construction adequate space is left as appurtenant premises. If these considerations had weighed with the Appellate Authority, it is argued, that the Appellate Authority would not have interfered with the order of the Land Tribunal. It is the further case of the revision petitioner, that in the property in question there are two tanks and the balance space available would be only sufficient for the construction of the building. It is also argued on his behalf that the law applicable in such cases has not been correctly understood by the Appellate Authority.