SATHI BAI KAMATH Vs. SUB COLLECTOR TELLICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were the respondents in an application made to the Collector, under S.75(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, by the 3rd respondent herein, for shifting the kudikidappu, and for the purpose of acquiring land to provide an alternative site to the appellants, to which they might be shifted. The application was enquired into by the Sub Collector, Tellicherry, and by Ext. P1 order that Officer found that the applicant had less than one acre of land as on 1-7-1969 and that he had established his bona fides for constructing a house for his own residence in the kudikidappu. Hence the application for shifting the kudikidappu was allowed. The applicant was directed to deposit 87 1/2% of the cost of acquisition of alternative land for providing kudikidappu to the appellants herein, and was also found to be liable to deposit the shifting charges to be determined after the acquisition of the site. This order was challenged by the appellants in the writ petition which was dismissed in limine by a learned Judge, against whose judgment this appeal is preferred.

(2.) Attack has been directed against the impugned order on the ground that the Sub Collector had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. Attack has been also directed to the merits of the order on the ground that the Officer had not judicially disposed of the application. Dealing first with the point of jurisdiction, we may extract S.75(3A) and (3B) of the Act, which are as follows:

(3.) As against the above decisions, on the other hand, one of us (Chandrasekhara Menon J ) had dealt with that question in O.P. No. 2934 of 1975. After noticing the provisions of the Act, and the Rules, the contention that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with the application under S.75(3) of the Act, was repelled. We record our agreement with the principle of the said decision.