PARAMESWARAN NAIR Vs. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the concurrent orders of the land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority, Land Reforms for shifting of the revision-petitioner's kudikidappu from item 1 to item 3 mentioned in the application. The bona fide need of shifting for the purpose of constructing a residential house for the applicant landowner has been concurrently found. Item 3 offered for shifting the kudikidappu is concurrently found to be a plot of land fit for erecting a homestead. Even though the learned Counsel Sri. O. V. Radhakrishnan has challenged these findings, I do not find much substance in the challenge for the reason that the findings are based on the evidence adduced in the case.

(2.) IT is pointed out that the kudikidappu is located at a place northeast of item 1 abutting the K. K. Road. The learned Counsel points out that the entire plot has a road frontage of over 150 feet, that the kudikidappu occupies a road frontage of 64 links only and even retaining the kudikidappu at the present spot there will be no inconvenience to the applicant landowner for the construction of a residential house which will have sufficient road frontage. The argument is on a question of fact. However on closer scrutiny, it can be found that this argument also cannot be accepted. IT is not the area of the present structure of the kudikidappu that has to be excluded in considering the question as to the availability of road frontage for the residential house to be constructed in item 1. The kudikidappukaran bad also applied for purchase of kudikidappu and a preliminary order has already been passed in those proceedings which had become final and if the area available for purchase by the kudikidappukaran, according to the Act, is to be excluded, it cannot be said that there will be sufficient road frontage for a residential house to be constructed by the applicant in item 1. The evidence of the Commissioner as well as the Engineer who submitted a plan to construct a new building, would clearly show that if the kudikidappu is to be retained at its present site and the requisite extent of land as per the Act is to be assigned to the kudikidappukaran, there will not be sufficient road-frontage for item 1.