KUNI ARIPPANDI Vs. UMMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is a kudikidappukaran in R.S. 14/3 of Eakkattoor desom in Arikulam Village, which belongs to the respondent landowner made an application under S.80B of the Land Reforms Act (Act 1 of 1964) for purchase of land as prescribed by S.80A. The kudikidappu occupies a Kuni (a small garden in the midst of paddy fields) covering 3 1/2 cents bordered on the east and south by paddy fields owned by the respondent. The petitioner claimed that be was entitled to purchase not only the 3 1/2 cents occupied by the kudikidappu but also 6 1/2 cents (it being a Panchayat area) adjacent to the kudikidappu under S.80A of the Act. This claim has been concurrently refused by the Land Tribunal and Appellate Authority in the view that the excess 6 1/2 cents claimed by the petitioner being part of the paddy field was not liable to be purchased. The petitioner challenges these orders in this revision which has come before us on a reference made by a learned Judge.

(2.) S.80A(1) entitles a kudikidappukaran "to purchase the kudikidappu occupied by him and lands adjoining thereto" subject to the limits prescribed by sub-s.(3), which so far as relevant, fixes a ceiling of 10 cents in a Panchayat area. Except providing that the land which could be purchased along with the kudikidappu should adjoin it. S.80A(1) does not lay down any further qualification about the nature of that land. Counsel for the respondent however referred back to S.2(25) of the Act which in defining "kudikidappukaran" provides that a person is not entitled to kudikidappu rights if he is in possession either as owner or as a tenant land in excess of 10 cents in a Panchayat area on which he could erect a homestead. From this counsel argued that the land which the kudikidappukaran is entitled to purchase under S.80A must also be land on which he could erect a homestead. In aid of this contention he relied upon Kunchi Koma v. Cheeru Narayani, 1970 KLT 1036 , where a learned single Judge held that a person possessing paddy land which was not fit for erecting a homestead was not disqualified from being a kudikidappukaran under S.2(25). That decision has no application as it was concerned only with the question whether possession of paddy land unfit for erecting a homestead would exclude a person claiming to be a kudikidappukaran from the ambit of that expression in S.2(25). Yet another single bench decision Damodaran v. Kunhiraman 1973 KLT 14 , quoted by counsel has also no bearing on the question before us for it only considered whether a person who had 7 1/2 cents of garden land and 12 1/2 cents of paddy land in a Panchayat area could qualify to be a kudikidappukaran. Here the petitioner's status as a kudikidappukaran is admitted, and the only controversy is about the nature of his rights under S.80A(1). The only reason counsel could urge in support of the contention that the land mentioned in S.80A(1) should be land on which the petitioner could erect a homestead was that since a kudikidappukaran was already in occupation of a kudikidappu he might need the excess land fixed by S.80(3) according as its location is in a city, municipal or panchayat area for the reconstruction of the building. We are not however satisfied that there is any valid ground to read this qualification into the expression "lands adjoining" in S.80A(1) of the Act. We feel that the following passage from Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala (F.B ), 1970 KLT 659 at 692, Para.61, throws some light on the intention of the legislature in enacting S.80A:

(3.) We reverse the orders of the Tribunals below and allow the petitioner's application to purchase 10 cents of land including the kudikidappu. We direct the Land Tribunal to pass consequential orders locating the land and fixing the price and other details in accordance with the Act. Parties will bear their costs in all the courts.