DAMODARAN Vs. RAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is by a Kudikidappukaran against an order passed by the Land Tribunal, Anthikad, Trichur, in an application filed under S.75(2) read with S.77 of the Land Reforms Act for shifting the Kudikidappu. The application was filed by the 1st respondent, Raghavan, for eviction of the Kudikidappukaran from the A schedule property which was described as belonging exclusively to Raghavan. The Kudikidappukaran was sought to be shifted to the 10 cents of the B Schedule which was offered as the alternate site and which was described as belonging in joint ownership to Raghavan. Some time after the petition for shifting was filed before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent Jayamony, was brought on record as the 2nd petitioner before the Land Tribunal on the allegation that the B Schedule property belonged jointly to Raghavan and to Jayamony. Neither in the application for shifting nor in the application for impleading is to be found any averment that Jayamony who came on record as the 2nd petitioner had any right or interest in the A Schedule property.

(2.) The Tribunal found on issue No. I that the A Schedule property was required for the building purpose of the applicant, and on issue No. 2 that the B Schedule property satisfied the requirements of S.75(2) of the Act. On Issue No. 3 it found that the respondents (the petitioner herein) are bound to shift from the Kudikidappu ana on Issue No. 4 dealing with the expenses reasonably required for the shifting, it found that the shifting charges of Rs. 700/- and Rs. 300/- towards the value of the hut had to be paid to the respondent before it. The Tribunal directed applicant No. 1 Raghavan to deposit the shifting charges and to transfer the ownership of the 10 cents of land to the respondents. The Kudikidappukaran, the respondent before the Tribunal, has filed this writ petition,

(3.) The finding regarding the bona fide requirement for shifting the Kudikidappu was attacked before me. But I think the same is not open to interference in these proceedings. The Tribunal found that Raghavan the 1st petitioner before it, was living with his elder brother in five cents and that his brother bad asked him to shift from the house where he was till then living; that there was no suitable site for construction for residential purpose, and that from the evidence of the Revenue Inspector's Report Ex. C1, and the evidence adduced by the Tribunal, it was satisfied that the A Schedule property of an extent of 44 cents was required for the construction of a house and its convenient enjoyment and for appurtenances such as cattle shed etc. I see no ground for interference with this finding.