P K PARAN Vs. ACHAMM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in an application for purchase of kudikidappu filed under S.80B of the Land Reforms Act before the Land Tribunal, Mullassery, is the revision petitioner. The applicant for purchase of kudikidappu alleged that he is a kudikidappukaran entitled to purchase the kudikidappu and so he applied under S.80B. Notice of that application was served on the respondent revision petitioner. He contended that the kudikidappu is situate in a very inconvenient place in the property causing hindrance to his industrial use of the same. He further stated that kudikidappu may either be shifted to the corner of the property or be will purchase a land to which the kudikidappukaran may be asked to shift. On receipt of this the Land Tribunal directed the revision petitioner to make a proper application and also to furnish the details as required under R.80 of the Land Reforms Tenancy Rules. Nothing was done in pursuance to this. The Land Tribunal therefore directed the Revenue Inspector to prepare a sketch and a valuation statement showing the value of the kudikidappu and 10 cents of land around it. That report was received on 21-6-1971 and the case was adjourned to 8-11-1971 for objection, if any, on this report of the Revenue Inspector. In the meanwhile, on the assumption that he had been declared ex parte the revision petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order passed against him. He also engaged a counsel. The Land Tribunal dismissed that application on 8-11-1971 and on the same day passed orders accepting the valuation statement and allowing the application for purchase of the kudikidappu. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority challenging the correctness of this order and it was contended that the revision petitioner has filed an application under S.77 to shift the kudikidappu to another place and therefore the application for purchase of the kudikidappu should be kept pending until the former application is disposed of by the Land Tribunal. It was also contended that the valuation fixed by the Land Tribunal is highly arbitrary and not in conformity with the rules laid down for fixing the value. The Appellate Authority rejected both the contentions and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) In the view that I take of the unsatisfactory nature of the order passed by the Land Tribunal in fixing the purchase price of the kudikidappu and 10 cents around it, I do not deem it necessary to consider the revision petitioner's prayer that, until the application to shift the kudikidappu is disposed of, the application for purchase of the kudikidappu should be kept pending. When the Land Tribunal finds that the applicant is a kudikidappukaran entitled to purchase the kudikidappu the purchase price payable should be fixed and specified in the order. Rules have been framed for the fixation of the market value on the basis of which the purchase price has to be fixed. R.77 provides that as far as possible the land adjoining the kudikidappu which is necessary or useful for the convenient enjoyment of the kudikidappu must be made available for purchase. This should cause the least inconvenience to the person in possession of the land in which the kudikidappu is situate. The same rule also provides that the market value of the land to be purchased by the kudikidappukaran should be determined in the manner provided in the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, for the acquisition of land under that Act. So, the Land Tribunal must consider these claims of the kudikidappukaran and the person in possession of the land and the market value must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and on that basis the purchase price payable by the kudikidappukaran must also be fixed. These are statutory requirements and the order must show that the Land Tribunal has taken these into account in fixing the location of the kudikidappu and also in fixing the purchase price. A perusal of the Revenue Inspector's sketch and valuation statement which have been accepted by the Land Tribunal shows that these factors have not been taken into account by the Land Tribunal. The sketch shows that the plot allowed to be purchased is situate in the middle of the property and in an inconvenient place. That apart, none of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are seen to have been followed by the Revenue Inspector in fixing the land value and value of improvements in the plot allowed to be purchased. The Revenue Inspector has only said that he has fixed Rs. 75/- per cent as land value because the property lies adjacent to a river and is likely to be flooded during the rainy season. Whether this price is the prevailing price in the locality, whether the fixation is based on any document are not stated. The details necessary to value the trees have not been given. A vague statement showing the age and the probable yield of the trees and their value alone is filed. This is quite unsatisfactory and even though the respondent bad not filed objection it was the duty of the Land Tribunal to have gone into the valuation statement and seen whether the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have been followed in fixing the value before accepting the Revenue Inspector's statement. There is also much force in the statement of the revision petitioner that he was not given sufficient opportunity to file his objection on the valuation statement According to him, as he was under a bona fide impression that he has been declared ex parte be thought that be should first get that order set aside before he can file objections. When the Land Tribunal found that be has not been declared ex parte, it should have allowed him another opportunity to file objection and disposed of the application only after considering whether the rules have been followed in fixing the market value of the land. I feel and justice requires that an opportunity must be given to the revision petitioner to file his objections, if any, to the valuation statement and sketch submitted by the Revenue Inspector. Before passing any order on the Revenue Inspector's statement it is the duty of the Land Tribunal to see whether the principles of the Land. Acquisition Act have been followed in fixing the market price of the land allowed to be purchased by the kudikidappukaran.

(3.) In the result, I set aside the orders of the Land Tribunal and of the Appellate Authority and remand the matter to the Land Tribunal for a de novo consideration in the light of the observations made above. It will be open to the revision petitioner to urge before the Land Tribunal his claim regarding his right under S.77. The parties shall bear their costs.