KRISHNANKUTTY Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL ALANGAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is filed by a kudikidappukaran challenging the order of the Land Tribunal directing him to shift to a new site mentioned in the order. The respondents 2 to 4 as applicants claimed before the Land Tribunal that the kudikidappu in the A Schedule property mentioned in the application has to be shifted to the property scheduled as B- Schedule as the former is required bona fide by them for putting up a building for their residence. A notice was issued to the petitioner as required by S 77 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to shift to the new site proposed by them in the notice. The petitioner sent a reply challenging their claim of a bona fide requirement of A Schedule and also challenging the fitness of the new site proposed in the notice. When he refused to comply with the requisition an application was filed before the Land Tribunal for the Same relief. During the course of the proceedings it was found that the new site proposed by the applicants was not fit for erecting a homestead. They therefore filed an application for amendment of their application under S.77 by substituting a fresh site for the one earlier mentioned. That amendment was allowed by the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal after enquiry came to the conclusion that the A schedule property where the kudikidappu is situate is bona fide required by the applicants for the purpose of erecting a residential building and therefore the petitioner must be shifted to another site. It was also found that the fresh site substituted for the earlier proposed site is suitable for erecting a homestead and that a fresh notice is not necessary under S.77 of the Act. One these findings an order was passed directing the petitioner to shift to the new site. It is this order that is challenged in this original petition.

(2.) The petitioner contends that on the finding of the Land Tribunal that the earlier site proposed is not fit for erecting a home stead, the application should have been dismissed for the reason that there has not been a fresh notice under S.77 requiring the petitioner to move to that site. This contention, though was not accepted by the Land Tribunal, appears to me to be legally correct. S.77(1) and the proviso to it are in the following terms: