VASU Vs. SREEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE of the objections that the petitioner had raised before the Tribunal was that the petitioner was a licensee, whose license was not revocable under S. 60 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, and that he was not, therefore, liable to be shifted. The Tribunal held that the said provision had no application to the case, since the matter was exclusively governed by the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The only point raised before me by the petitioner's counsel relates to the above finding of the Tribunal. The other objections raised in the petition relate to the findings of the Tribunal on questions of fact; and counsel for the petitioner has not rightly urged them at the tearing. Two contentions were raised before me on the above point. The first is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the question whether a licensee is liable for being shifted or not. The second contention is that, even assuming that the Tribunal is competent to decide it, his decision is wrong under law.

(2.) I do not think that the first contention of the petitioner's counsel deserves serious consideration. Every kudikidappukaran is a licensee. S. 75 (1) of the Land Reforms Act gives fixity of occupation for the kudikidappu, subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of s. 75. S. 77 (1) of the Act confers the jurisdiction to entertain an application for eviction of a kudikidappukaran under Sub-section (2) or (4) of S. 75 on the land Tribunal. S. 125 (1) takes away the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain and decide such matters. So the jurisdiction to entertain an application for eviction of a kudikidappukaran under S. 75 (2) is exclusively vested in the Land Tribunal, and the contention that the land Tribunal is incompetent to deal with such an application, when the kudikidappukaran claims a right of occupation by virtue of S. 60 of the Indian Easements Act would be contrary to the aforesaid provisions of the Land Reforms Act.

(3.) I am also of the opinion that the provision in S. 60 of the Indian Easements Act cannot prevail over the provisions contained in the kerala Land Reforms Act regarding the rights and liabilities of a kudikidappukaran. The Land Reforms Act is a law enacted by the State legislature with respect to the matter mentioned in item 18 in List II of the seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That item reads, "land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization. " The Indian Easements Act is also a law with respect to a matter falling under the same entry. After the commencement of the constitution, the power to make a law with respect to such a matter is exclusively vested in the legislature of the State. But an existing law is continued in force by virtue of Art. 372 of the Constitution; and the continuation is only until it is altered or repealed or amended by the competent legislature. The result is that any provision in the Easements Act to the extent it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Land Reforms Act stands repealed. In other words, the provisions of the Easements Act cannot prevail over the provisions in the Land Reforms Act. The relation between a kudikidappukaran and his land owner, and their respective rights and liabilities are now completely governed by the provisions contained in the Land Reforms Act. S. 60 of the easements Act cannot, therefore, be availed of by a kudikidappukaran.