AYISHA Vs. KUNHATHUITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in an application before the Land Tribunal for purchase of kudikidappu is the revision petitioner. According to the applicant, she is a kudikidappukari entitled to apply for purchase the kudikidappu under S.80 B of the Land Reforms Act. On that basis, an application was put in before the Land Tribunal. The revision petitioner who was respondent, took objection to this application mainly on two grounds. The first objection was that the applicant is not a kudikidappukari. The building that she is in occupation, was constructed about 10 years back at a cost of Rs. 2,500 and secondly that the respondent is having only less than 1 acre and therefore, the application for purchase of kudikidappu is not maintainable before the expiry of two years provided for the respondent to make an application before the Government for acquisition of other land to which the kudikidappu may be shifted. The Land Tribunal after this objection was received, directed an inquiry to be made by the Revenue Inspector as regards the value of the building. The Revenue Inspector submitted the report dated 28-1-1971 in which the value of the building was stated to be Rs. 300/-. This assessment was objected to by the revision petitioner, and the revision petitioner, by a separate application, moved the Land Tribunal for issuing a commission to any advocate to make a local inspection and submit a report as regards the value of the building. That was allowed. The Advocate Commissioner made a local inspection and submitted a report and an account on 3-3-1971. As per his account, the building is about 6 years old and worth Rs. 809.50. When this report was received, the Land Tribunal even without any motion from the applicant passed an order on 4-3-1971 which reads thus:

(2.) From what has been stated above it can be seen that the Land Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a kudikidappukari on the basis of the local inspection made by the Land Tribunal. In this connection I may also state that as per the Land Tribunal's local inspection report the building is worth Rs. 570/- and deducting certain amount for depreciation the value will be only round about Rs. 300/-. It is this inspection report that has been made use of by the Land Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the building was valued less than Rs. 750/- at the time of construction and that the petitioner therefore is a kudikidappukari. The Land Tribunal before making the local inspection did not pass any order as to why the Advocate Commissioner's report cannot be accepted and even in the order passed on 31-5-1971 he did not state any reason why the Advocate Commissioner's report cannot be accepted. He only observed that there is a discrepancy as regards the age given in the report. If there is a report as regards the value of the building before it is considered or acted upon it is open to both the parties to take such objections as they deem proper and if necessary, examine the commissioner and try to show that their objections are well founded. When the Land Tribunal himself makes the local inspection and makes a report it will be rather very embarrassing for any of the parties to take objection to that report and let in evidence regarding their objection. If they went to substantiate their objection, they may have to examine the Land Tribunal and question the basis of his conclusion as regards the value which he has fixed. It is needless to say that he himself is the person who has to decide this question. In such a situation the Land Tribunal should not have based a conclusion on his local inspection. The rules framed under the Act do not warrant such a step by the Land Tribunal.

(3.) The relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules framed under that may be noticed in this connection. S.80A to 80G only direct that an enquiry as may be prescribed by rules should be made and orders passed on the application. S.105A(2) allows the Land Tribunal to depute officers appointed under sub-s.(1) of that Section to make a local enquiry, investigation or inspection and collect data. Their report and records 'submitted by them will be evidence. Sub-s.(3) to that Section allows the examination of these officers by the Land Tribunal. R.82 and 83 of the Rules permit an enquiry to be made through a member of the staff of the Land Tribunal to ascertain the details referred to in those rules. R.92 enables the Land Tribunal to issue a commission. The reports of the member of the staff and of the commissioner can be objected to. These persons can be examined and cross examined and the Land Tribunal can either accept or reject their report in passing orders under S.80B. The only provision which enables a local inspection to be made by the Tribunal is R.137. That rule reads as follows: