CHERU Vs. CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four Civil Revision Petitions arise from the common order passed by the Appellate authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur disposing four appeals as A.A. Nos. 26 of 1987, 23 of 1987, 25 of 1987 and 24 of 1987, which in turn arise from the common order passed by the Land Tribunal, Thrissur dismissing O.A. Nos. 2178 of 1976, 2179 of 1976, 2180 of 1976 and 2177 of 1976. All the four Original Applications were filed under Section 80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act ('Act for short) for purchase of the alleged kudikidappu right over the petition scheduled buildings.

(2.) The proceedings have got a chequered career. The properties comprised in Survey Nos. 219and 222 originally belonged to Sri. Appan Thampuran. The properties were purchased by the revision petitioners under Exhibits B1 and B2 sale deeds. The contesting respondents in these original Applications and others who were residing in buildings situated in the property, filed seven original Applications as O.A. Nos. 2176 of 1976 to 2182 of 1976 for purchase of kudikidappu on identical grounds. The revision petitioners entered appearance and raised identical objections in all the seven Original Applications. The Land Tribunal deputed an Authorised Officer (Revenue Inspector) to conduct a local inspection and file reports. The Authorised Officer filed reports in all the seven cases whhich were marked as exhibit C1 in all the cases. The applicants in all the seven original Applications filed identical objections to Exhibit C1 report filed in all the cases. The revision petitions also filed identical objections. In all cases, on the side of the petitioners the petitioners were examined as PW1. In O.A. 2176 of 1976 and independent witness was also examined as P.W.2. The respondent gave evidence in all the seven Original Applications as R.W.1. Thereafter a note of argument was submitted by the revision petitioners in all the seven cases raising identical contentions. The Land Tribunal after considering the pleadings and evidence found that the applicants in all the seven cases does not come under the definition of Section 2(25)(a) of the Act. It was found that their common case that their predecessors in interest obtained land from Appan Thampuran for constructing homestead about forty years back, in which they had constructed homesteads and they are residing there was not proved. After analysing the evidence, the Tribunal found that the applicants in all the seven cases does not satisfy the definition of "kudikidappukaran" contained in Section 2(25) (a) of the Act and dismissed all the Original Applications.

(3.) The petitioners in O.A. 2176 of 1976 and 2182 of 1976 did not file any appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioners in the other original Applications filed A.A. Nos. 72 of 1978, 176 of 1978, 177 of 1978, 224 of 1978 and 643 of 1978. All these five appeals were heard together. The Appellate Authority found that "the Land Tribunal based its decision mainly on the report of the Revenue Inspector and the purchase deed of the respondents". It was further found that there was "no detailed examination as to who constructed the house, what were their cost of construction at the time of their construction and what would be the probable rent the building would fetch, have not been properly examined". It was also found that "the evidence relied on were not adequate to come to a correct conclusion" and that "the decision of the Land Tribunal not sound". So, the Appellate Authority held that "further enquiry as to whether the building will come under the definition of "hut" under K.L.R. Act has to be examined on the basis of the detailed enquiry and lead further evidence, if necessary, by deputing an Advocate Commissioner to assess the value at the time of construction". All the five appeals were allowed and the Original Applications were remanded.