ITHONAMMA Vs. KARAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in O. P. No. 3377 of 1973 is the landholder in respect of the property in which the first respondent, who filed O. P. No. 3045 of 1974, is a kudikidappukaran. The 2nd respondent in O. P. No. 3377 of 1973, who is the 3rd respondent in O. P. No. 3045 of 1974, is the Land Tribunal, Tirur, hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the petitioner in O. P. No. 3377 of 1973 is called the 'landholder', and the 1st respondent therein, who is the petitioner in O. P. No. 3045 of 1974, the 'kudikidappukaran'.

(2.) The kudikidappukaran filed O. A. No. 1523 of 1970 on the file of the Tribunal for purchase of kudikidappu right from the landholder under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. During the course of the proceeding, I. A. No, 108 of 1970 in O. A. No. 1523 of 1970 was filed by the landholder under S.80A(9) of the Act requesting that the kudikidappukaran might be shifted to the south western corner of the property. After the issue of the statutory notice, an application under S.75(4) read with S.77 of the Act also was filed by the landholder. That application was taken on the file as O. A. No. 379 of 1973 by the Tribunal; ultimately the Tribunal by Ext. P-2 order dismissed O. A. No. 379 of 1973 on 3 8 1973. Counsel for the landholder submits that the application O. A. No. 379 of 1973 has been dismissed by Ext. P-2 order without any proper reason and on irrelevant considerations. The reason stated in Ext. P-2 (in O. P. No. 3377 of 1973) by the Tribunal for the dismissal of O. A. No. 379 of 1973 reads as follows:

(3.) There are three provisions in the Act enabling the landholder to shift the kudikidappukaran by initiating proceedings before the Land Tribunal, namely, sub-s.(2) and (4) of S.75 and sub-s.(9) of S.80A of the Act. There is also provision contained in sub-s.(3) of S.75 for making application to the Government for acquisition of land for the purpose of shifting the kudikidappukaran. There are, no doubt, similarities in certain respects in all the four provisions. However, the basic and substantial differences have to be borne in mind by the Tribunal in order to guard against pitfalls in the application of the relevant provisions to the facts and circumstances of the given case.