SANKU RAMAN Vs. THOMMEN JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition seeks to quash Ex. P3 order of the Land Tribunal, Mulanthuruthy, Ernakulam District, on an application filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein for shifting the kudikidappu of the petitioner from the A schedule property in the petition to the B schedule which was offered as a substitute. A petition was filed under S.75(2) of the Act. and the reason alleged for shifting was that the Respondents required the portion occupied by the kudikidappu bona fide for building purposes. The application was allowed by the Land Tribunal by Ext. P3 order. The petitioners have attacked Ext. P3 order on several grounds. It was said that the Land Tribunal associated an extraneous body, namely the Popular Committee with the proceedings; and the proceedings of the Tribunal violated the principles of natural justice in so far as Pw. 1 was examined without notice to the petitioner and without affording him a sufficient opportunity either for cross examining the witness or for tendering his own evidence. Besides these, it was also contended that there is no specific finding by the Land Tribunal that the Respondents required the kudikidappu bona fide for building purposes, and therefore the order directing the shifting of the kudikidappu was not justified and proper.

(2.) Ext. R 1 filed along with the counter affidavit of the 1st Respondent is a copy of order sheet of the Tribunal. The entry on 22-6-1972 is: "adjourned to 6-7-1972 for objection about the Commissioner's Report and for all evidence (referred to Popular Committee)''. On 6-7-1972 the entry shows: "Popular Committee's Report awaited". On 12-7-1972 the endorsement shows that no report of the Popular Committee was received, that the applicant was examined as Pw. 1 and the matter was adjourned to 19-7-1972 for orders. On 19-7-1972 the entries show that the applicant and the respondent were present, that the applicant's (Respondent's ) Advocate filed a petition and the matter was adjourned to 26-7-1972 for evidence and orders. On 26-7-1972 the endorsement is that the applicant and respondents were present and that the respondents agreed for shifting and the matter was adjourned to 2-8-1972 for settlement. It is unnecessary to deal with the endorsements on 2-8-1972 or on 9-8-1972 or on 16-8-1972, which were the next successive hearing dates. On 30-8-1972 the endorsement is that the arguments were over, and the matter was adjourned to 4-9-72 for orders. On 4-9-1972 Ext. P3 was pronounced

(3.) From the above endorsements in the order sheet, there are certain things which clearly emerge. Although at one stage, the petitioner herein agreed to shift the kudikidappu and the matter was adjourned for settlement, no settlement actually materialised, and the order eventually passed was one on the merits after hearing the arguments of the parties. It is also clear that after Pw. 1 was examined nothing prevented the petitioner, if so advised, from cross examining him. Be that as it may, on 19-7-1972 when the petitioner filed Ex. P1 petition for reopening the case and having a further enquiry, the same was allowed and the matter was posted to 26-7-1972, for evidence. There is nothing suggest, much the less to make out, that the petitioner herein was denied any opportunity of cross examining Pw.1, or of leading his evidence. The complaint that there was a violation of natural justice and that the petitioner had not been afforded sufficient opportunity to cross examine Pw. 1 or to lead his evidence is therefore baseless.