KORUMBAN Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL TELLICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions challenging the orders passed by the Land Tribunal under S.77 read with S.75 (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, for short the Act, have come up before us on orders of references passed by the learned single Judges who beard the petitions and subsequent direction to post the cases before a Full Bench. Both the orders of references are based on the supposed conflict between the two Division Bench rulings of this Court in Cheekutty v. Land Tribunal, Alangad 1975 KLT. 628 and V.J. Mathukutty v. Ouseph Thomas, 1976 KLT. 120.

(2.) THE arguments before us ranged over a wide field, and almost all the decisions of this Court bearing on the applicability and the interpretation of sub-section (2) of S.75 of the Act, the circumstances under which orders could be passed by the Land Tribunal under S.77 read with S.75 (2), the factors that have to be established by the applicant and the approach to be made by the Tribunal in reaching the conclusions necessary for holding that the terms of sub- section (2) of S.75 have been satisfied were elaborately dealt with and the appropriate provisions in the Act in sub-section (3) of S.75, sub-section (4) of that section, S.80B and sub- section (9) of S.80A were referred to.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal (1962) 2 S.C.R. 623 (AIR. 1963 S.C. 499) had to construe the provision in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 providing for eviction on the ground that the landlord wanted to reconstruct and observed that: