MUHAMADUNNI Vs. MUNDIKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal arises against the judgment of a learned Judge who allowed the writ petition filed by a kudikidappukaran, against whom an order of shifting had been passed under S.75(2) of the Land Reforms Act. The applicant for shifting was the Secretary of the Tha-Ali Mul Islam Madrassa, Padoor. The Land Tribunal found the requirements of S.75(2) had been made out and directed the shifting of the kudikidappukaran on the terms and conditions specified in its order Ext. P1. In the writ petition, a learned Judge of this Court quashed Ext. P1 order on the only ground that the Madrassa is not a "person" entitled to the relief contemplated by S.75 of the Act. The learned Judge made it clear that he had not considered the case on the merits.

(2.) We are unable to sustain the ground on which the learned Judge quashed Ext. P1 order of the Land Tribunal. The expression "person" as defined in S.2 clause (43) of the Act, is as follows:

(3.) Counsel for the respondent invited our attention to the fact that the merits of the case had not been gone into. This is quite so. But the Land Tribunal had allowed the application for shitting on the terms and conditions contemplated by S.75(2). Although, in any event, counsel for the respondent is entitled to attack this conclusion, we are satisfied that no grounds at all have been made out to disclose either any jurisdictional error or any patent illegality in regard to this part of the order of the Tribunal.