SREEDHARAN NAMBOODIRI Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL ANTHIKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an application filed by an owner of two and odd acres of land for the shifting of a kudikidappu under S.75(2) and (4) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (shortly stated the Act), the Land Tribunal has denied relief on the grounds that the applicant has not put forward any valid inconvenience which affects him seriously and that on a personal inspection the Land Tribunal is satisfied that there is ample space in the plot for the construction of buildings, if necessary, for the use of the applicant without shifting the kudikidappu. I am afraid that the Tribunal has misunderstood the scope of the enquiry under the relevant provisions resulting in an erroneous decision. It might be noted that the prayer for shifting was made on the allegations that the petitioner wants to construct a building in the plot to attend to the agricultural operations of his paddy lands and paramba in Anthikad, that buildings have to be constructed for his major sons, that kudikidappus in the plot have to be shifted to a portion by the boundary of the property and that the kudikidappukars have been interfering with the enjoyment of the land without the permission of the petitioner - owner. S.75(2) and (4) of the Act are herein below extracted:

(2.) In Janaki v. Land Tribunal, Tellicherry ( 1973 KLT 923 ) Mr. Justice Eradi had considered the scope and ambit of the provision in S.75(2) of the Act. His Lordship, if I may say so, with respect correctly pointed out:

(3.) Similarly, under S.75(4) of the Act, the Tribunal is expected only to investigate and determine the question whether a person would have honestly considered that the location of the kudikidappu is such as to cause inconvenience to him. The fact that the Tribunal itself would have taken a different view as to inconvenience is not decisive. On the facts and circumstances of the case, if there is a reasonable probability of a person entertaining such consideration that should preclude the Tribunal from making any further enquiry into the matter. The Tribunal has not obviously proceeded on that basis.