KUMARAN Vs. PRABHAKARAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.A. 7048 of 1970 before the Land Tribunal, Pattanakkad under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for purchase Kudikidappu right in respect of the property wherein he was residing. The first respondent denied his status as Kudikidappukaran as defined in S.2 (25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It came out that the petitioner got under a partition deed and is in possession of 10 cents of dry land and 10 1/2 cents of wet land. Relying on the above document, the Land Tribunal held that the petitioner is not a Kudikidappukaran and dismissed the petition. The decision was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The revision petition is against the above. When the case came up before a single Judge of this Court, reference was made to the decision in Damodaran v. Kunhiraman ( 1973 KLT 14 ). The correctness of the above decision was doubted by the learned single Judge and that resulted in this reference to the Division Bench.

(2.) In Damodaran v. Kunhiraman (1973 KLT 14), the applicant was the owner of 7 1/2 cents of garden land and 12 1/2 cents of adjoining paddy field The Land Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the applicant was not a Kudikidappukaran under S.2(25) of the Act. The matter ultimately came up in revision before this Court. The argument put forward on behalf of the applicant was that he was a Kudikidappukaran since be was not in possession of 10 cents of land which was fit to be used for erecting a homestead. Rejecting the above contention, Namboodiripad, J. observed:

(3.) There is difference between the above case and the present one. The petitioner herein owns 10 cents of dry land and not something less than 10 cents. Unlike in Damodaran v. Kunhiraman (1973 KLT 14), the paddy field is not contiguous to the dry land. Therefore, the argument that the paddy field can be converted into dry land to make up the deficiency in the dry land for erecting a homestead is not available in this case.