AYYAKUTTY Vs. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises as other cases before me have, the question as to the appropriate procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in passing an order under sub-s.(2) of S.77 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, for short the Act, requiring the kudikidappukaran to shift the kudikidappu before such date as may be specified in the order.

(2.) I am in this case concerned with an application based on sub-s.(2) of S.75 of the Act. Under this provision the person in possession of the land is enabled, if he bona fide required the land for building purposes, for himself or any member of his family, to require the kudikidappukaran to shift to a new site belonging to the person in possession of the land subject to the conditions mentioned in sub clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (c) of sub-s.(2) of S.75 of the Act. The fourth condition mentioned in the section is that "the landlord shall transfer ownership and possession of the new site to the kudikidappukaran and shall pay to him the reasonable cost of shifting the kudikidappu to the new site". If the person in possession so required the kudikidappukaran to shift and the kudikidappukaran did not shift within a month he may apply under S.77 to the Land Tribunal concerned to enforce compliance with such request. This has been done in the case before me and one of the contentions that was raised by the kudikidappukaran was that the site to which the person in possession of the land required the kudikidappukaran to shift did not belong to the person in possession of that site. The Tribunal has expressed no opinion in Ext. P1 order in this regard. It has merely stated in the penultimate paragraph of the order as follows:

(3.) Without determining the question whether a landlord had ownership and or possession of the site to which he wanted the kudikidappu to be shifted the order Ext. P1 stated in its operative portion.