CHEEKUTTY Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL ALANGAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Several interesting questions are raised by the appellant in this writ appeal who was the petitioner before the learned single Judge. In the Original Petition he challenged an order of the Land Tribunal, Alangad on an application under S.77 read with S.75(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The applicant before the Land Tribunal sought the shifting of the kudikidappu of the respondent therein for the purpose of developing an industry which was run by him, that being one of making bricks. The kudikidappukaran who was the respondent in that application contended that the requirement of the applicant was not bona fide, that even in the property in which the kudikidappu was situate there was sufficient area for the Choola intended to be erected by the applicant without disturbing the kudikidappukaran, that the alternate site was not suitable for erecting a homestead and further that the application itself was not maintainable since the notice contemplated under S.77 of the Act was not preceded by a requisition for shifting. The Land Tribunal inspected the site on 13-5-1972 and found that the applicant was conducting brick business, that the Choola for baking bricks was situate very near the hut where the kudikidappukaran was residing and that shifting of the kudikidappu was necessary for development of the industry. On the question whether B schedule property was suitable for erecting a homestead the decision was similarly based on the local inspection made by the Tribunal. The application was allowed and the applicant was directed to transfer ownership of the alternate site offered without fixing a time limit for such transfer. But the respondent was asked to shift his kudikidappu to the new site within two months from the date of the Tribunal's order. The learned single Judge while agreeing with the Land Tribunal found that the petitioner need shift to the new site only within two months after the respondent transferred the new site to the petitioner in the Original Petition and deposited the amount of Rs. 750/- towards shifting charges.

(2.) The contentions raised before us may be enumerated:

(3.) It is true that the kudikidappukaran has to be requested to shift from his kudikidappu and it is only on non compliance with such requisition that the question of issue of statutory notice would arise. There is no case in the objection by the kudikidappukaran that no such requisition was made. All the same it was argued that the absence of mention of such requisition having been made in the statutory notice issued under S.77 of the Act would be fatal. We fail to appreciate this plea, for, there is no requirement that there should be mention in the statutory notice of a requisition having been made and that having not been complied with. We feel that there is no substance in this contention raised by the appellant.