PURUSHAN Vs. PRAKASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER instituted an application under S. 80b, Land reforms Act (called hereunder the Act for convenience) for purchase of kudikidappu to which be was then entitled. While his application was pending before the Land Tribunal, be and his wife together purchased on 18 111974, 85 cents of garden land fit enough to erect a homestead. The respondent-landowner thereupon contended that with the acquisition of this land the petitioner had ceased to be a kudikidappukaran and had thereby lost his right to purchase the kudikidappu. This defence was rejected by the Tribunal but prevailed with the appellate Authority which reversed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the application. The petitioner challenges the appellate decision.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner Mr. Achan contended that the decisive date is 111970 when S. 80a which entitled kudikidappukaran to purchase his kudikidappu and S. 80b which prescribed the procedure for that purpose, came into force and as the petitioner was a kudikidappukaran at that date, the subsequent acquisition of land by him cannot disqualify him or entail dismissal of his application. It was also contended that the normal rule is 'once a kudikidappukaran, always a kudikidappukaran' subject to his being evicted under S. 75 (1) or to his kudikidappu being shifted under S. 75 (2 ). Counsel argued that the acquisition of land in the present case might entitle the respondent-landowner to evict him by virtue of S. 75 (1) (iv) but would not by itself destroy his status as a kudikidappukaran or preclude him from sustaining his application and obtaining an order of purchase.

(3.) THESE observations fully support the conclusion on this aspect which I have indicated above.