VARKEY THOMAS Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL PAMPAKUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Land Tribunal, Pampakuda by the order impugned in this petition held that the application for shifting of a kudikidappa moved by the petitioner under S.77 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963, Act 1 of 1964, had to be dismissed since the landlord had not established the requirement of the site of the kudikidappa for the construction of building for his residence. The landlord is admittedly in possession of 7 acres of land including the property of 2 acres and 39 cents in a corner of which the kudikidappa is situate. According to the kudikidappukaran the area in the possession of the landlord is more extensive, but on that there is no evidence. The Tribunal found that even on the facts admitted it must be found that there is necessary space available in the property wherein the landlord wants to construct the building even without disturbing the residence of the kudikidappukaran. The Tribunal therefore took the view that the need for displacing the kudikidappukaran from the site which he is occupying had not been established and the claim in that behalf by the petitioner has not been shown to be bona fide. This is a finding on facts reached on very relevant considerations and so it is not for this Court to interfere. Normally the matter should have come to rest at that. But the learned counsel Sri. P. N. Sankaranarayana Pillai, appearing for the landlord, the petitioner herein, took up the stand that it is not for the kudikidappukaran to remind the landlord that he had other land in which he could conveniently construct a building and that it was not open to the kudikidappukaran to dictate to the landlord as to where the latter should construct the building.

(2.) S.75(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act deals with the rights and liabilities of Kudikidappukars. That reads:

(3.) It is not difficult to notice the emphasis in sub-s.(2) to the requirement of "the land". That section indicates that the person in possession of the land on which there is a homestead or but in the occupation of a kudikidappukaran may, if he bona fide requires the land for certain purposes apply for shifting. The reference to the possession of the land on which there is a homestead or hut is followed by the reference to requirement of the land. In other words, the requirement must be of the land on which there is a homestead or hut. It can admit of no serious doubt that the landlord should establish not only that he bona fide requires some land for one or other of the purposes mentioned in the section, but that he bona fide requires "the land" for that purpose. In the context of the earlier reference to the land as that in which there is a homestead or hut, the words "the land" occurring again in the sub-section can mean and can only mean the site of the homestead or hut. May be, the site on which the kudikidappu is situate is required by the landlord for the purpose of construction particularly because of its location. Or its situation may have relevance to his profession. It is possible to conceive of many such similar situations. The section enables the landlord in such cases to seek shifting. In other words, it is open to the landlord to show that, notwithstanding the fact that he possesses other lands on which he could have constructed buildings for the purposes mentioned, the land on which the kudikidappu is situate is the most suitable site. In such cases, notwithstanding the possession of other land he will be able to establish that he requires "the land". Once it is shown that his requirement will be satisfied only by the land on which the kudikidappu is situate or that it is that land which will meet his requirement most satisfactorily it will not be an answer to say that the landlord should nevertheless choose some other land in his possession. This I understand to be the position and this, according to me, would be consistent with the scheme of the provisions relating to fixity granted to the kudikidappukaran under the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964.