PARVATHY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting point has been raised in this revision arising out of an order passed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Ernakulam, in L. R. A. S. No. 1329 of 1977 dated 17-1-1979 whereunder, in reversal of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Vypeen, in O. A. No. 1804 of 1971, the Appellate Authority dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act XXXV of 1969, for short the Act.

(2.) It is not necessary to trace the history of the litigation between the petitioner and the respondents. Suffice to say that the only question that falls for decision in this revision is whether to satisfy the requirement of ''any land" referred to in S.2(25) of the Act it would be enough to have an aggregate of 10 cents of land or whether it is necessary to have a compact area of 10 cents. The Land Tribunal in a rather elaborate order took the view that the fact that the petitioner was holding 8 cents in one survey number and 2 1/2 cents in another survey number, lying separate and away from each other, by itself would not deprive her of her right to purchase the kudikidappu under S.80B of the Act. In reversal of the decision of the Land Tribunal, the Appellate Authority has held, relying on the decision of this Court in Damodaran v. Kunhiraman ( 1973 KLT 14 ) that the requirement would be satisfied if the petitioner was having an extent of not less than 10 cents of land in the aggregate.

(3.) For one thing, the decision relied on by the Appellate Authority, namely, Damodaran v. Kunhiraman (1973 KLT 14), which found approval by a Division Bench of this Court in Kumaran v. Prabhakaran Pillai ( 1977 KLT 53 ) has subsequently been overruled by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Lakshmanan v. Ariyavi ( 1979 KLT 126 ). For another thing, on a simple reading of the section it is fairly clear, particularly by the use of the expression "any land" the provision to become meaningful, the 10 cents should be of a compact area, not scattered. The real test is whether the occupier of the kudikidappu is holding in his own right an item of immovable property which would provide a suitable site with reasonable convenience to erect a homestead. The minimum of 10 cents in a village prescribed is for that very purpose, not for assessing his material wealth or worldly possession. In this view, the judgment of the Appellate Authority reversing the order of the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained; and it has to be set aside. I, therefore, allow the revision, set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and restore the order of the Land Tribunal; in the peculiar circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.