NAFEESU Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The bone of contention is an extent of 3 cents of land; and the legal battle which has by now lasted nearly 13 years is between two unequals; the kudikidappukaran fighting for retaining his kudikidappu in 3 cents of land on the one band, and the land owner, who is admittedly having not less than 84 cents of land, trying to enrich himself by getting the 3 cents of land under the provisions of S.75(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, on the other. This is the third round of litigation between the same parties on the same question in this Court.

(2.) The main argument advanced by Sri. P. A. Mohammed (T), the counsel for the appellant petitioner, is that the Government as well as the learned single Judge did not bear in mind the difference between sub-s.(2) of S.75 on the one hand and sub-s.(3) of that section on the other. According to Shri Mohammed, the section does not postulate an enquiry to be made as to the bona fide need or otherwise of the petitioner; and on being satisfied that the petitioner was holding less than one acre of land and was also a small-holder, the petition ought to have been automatically allowed. The learned Judge having considered the matter on record held that this was not really the position in law, as could be understood from the scheme of the Act. The learned Judge also felt that this litigation had already outlived its legitimate duration; and any further life to the litigation to tire out the respondent would frustrate the object of the legislature.

(3.) Several decisions have been cited by Shri Mohammed to contend for the position that there was no need for the Court to go into the question as to whether there was bona fide need for the petitioner to have the kudikidappukaran evicted for the purpose of his being enabled to construct a building for his residence. We would take it for the purpose of this case that there was no need for the appellant petitioner to prove his bona fide need as the Section is silent on the question of bona fides. All the same, to equate the expression 'required' to mere 'wish' or 'desire', would also be equally wrong. The requirement implies something more than mere wish or desire. 'Requirement implies real need which should stand proved on an objective consideration of the facts which are relevant. If this is not the real meaning and purpose, the Section would have been so worded that whenever a small holder, holding less than one acre of land, applies for eviction of the Kudikidappukaran offering to acquire and give equal extent of land within the limits prescribed that petition would have to be merely allowed. The Legislature in its wisdom very guardedly used the word 'require' to ensure that it is only where the Government is satisfied that there is real need, not a mere wish or desire, that the land in the occupation of the Kudikidappukaran has to be restored to the land owner who is a small-holder owning less than one acre. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the appellant petitioner that for his mere asking, and without anything more, he being a small holder holding less than one acre of land, his prayer for evicting the kudikidappukaran giving him an equal extent of land to be acquired by the Government, has to be allowed.