DAMODARAN Vs. KUNHIRAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised is short and the facts are not in dispute. The petitioner before me is the owner of a slice of land wherein the respondent is residing. I may call the petitioner as landowner and the respondent as applicant. The applicant moved the Land Tribunal under S.80B of Act 1 of 1964 for appropriate orders enabling him to purchase the homestead alleging that he is a kudikidappukaran within the meaning of S.2(25) of Act 1 of 1964. The landowner resisted contending that the applicant is not a kudikidappukaran as defined in S.2(25). It is common case that the applicant along with his brother owns 40 cents of land out of which 15 cents is garden land and the rest is paddy field. It is also not disputed before "me" by the applicant that he is entitled to a half share in the entire 40 cents which would mean that he owns 7 1/2 cents of garden land and 12 1/2 cents of adjoining paddy field. The Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the applicant is not a kudikidappukaran within the meaning of the relevant provision of the Act. On appeal by the applicant the appellate authority reversed that decision on the ground that since the garden land to which the applicant is entitled falls short of the ten cents referred to in S.2(25) of the Act the applicant must be deemed to be a kudikidappukaran. It is the correctness of that decision that is challenged in this revision preferred by the aggrieved landowner.

(2.) The amendment to sub-s.25 of S.2 made by the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 1972 (Act 17 of 1972) is not relevant for the purpose of this case. The relevant provision of S.2(25) is extracted below: