LAWS(KER)-1981-7-54

PETER JOSEPH Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY L R ERNAKULAM

Decided On July 02, 1981
PETER JOSEPH Appellant
V/S
APPELLATE AUTHORITY (L.R.), ERNAKULAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By its judgment dated 3-8-1979 made in L.R.A.S. No. 1005 of 1977, a true copy of which is Ext. P2, the 1st respondent, Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Ernakulam, set aside the order dated 16-8-1976 made in O.A. No. 218 of 1973 by the 2nd respondent, the special Tahsildar (L.R.), Ramankari, hereinafter referred to as the Land Tribunal, a true copy of which is Ext. P1, and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. The writ petition is for quashing Ext. P2 judgment.

(2.) Here the short facts are: The predecessor in interest of the petitioner made an application under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 (the Act) for purchase of his kudikidappu in the land belonging to the 3rd respondent. The order allowing the purchase of 10 cents of land including his hut thereon passed on that application was set aside by the Appellate Authority and the matter remanded to the Land Tribunal. Thereafter remand enquiry resulted in Ext. P1 order, once again allowing the kudikidappukaran to purchase 10 cents of land. That order having been set aside and the matter remanded by Ext. P2 judgment, as already noticed, this writ petition has been filed. The original applicant having died during the pendency of the proceedings, his legal representative is prosecuting the matter.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the sole ground on which the setting aside and the remand are ordered is the contention raised by the 3rd respondent that the kudikidappu is situate in 4 cents of land and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to purchase 10 cents of land, which is untenable both in law and on facts. No counter affidavit is seen to have been filed by any of the respondents. The counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that there is no scope for interference in a proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution inasmuch as even the pleadings of the petitioner do not disclose any error of jurisdiction or law.