PADMANABHAN Vs. KUNHALIKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in O. A. No. 93 of 1971, an application for purchase of Kudikidappu under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, for short the Act, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The short point that arises for consideration is this. The petitioner was in occupation of a hut with permission on 1-1-1970 when Act 35 of 1969 came into force. The petitioner was then disqualified to be a Kudikidappukaran because he was having land exceeding the limit fixed in S.2(25) on which he could erect a homestead. Later, he assigned that land and applied for the purchase of the Kudikidappu under S.80B of the Act. The question is whether he has any right under S.80A of the Act to purchase the Kudikidappu.

(2.) The Land Tribunal, Kozhikode allowed the petitioner's application for purchase, holding him to be a Kudikidappukaran. Against the order of the Land Tribunal, the landowner, who is the Ist respondent in this Civil Revision Petition, went in appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kozhikode. The Appellate Authority allowed that appeal holding that the petitioner could not claim the status of a Kudikidappukaran under S.2(25) of the Act as he was having land exceeding the limit fixed in the sub-section on which he could erect a homestead. The petitioner has challenged the above order of the Appellate Authority in this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) In Raphael Varghese v. Vareed Pappu (C.R.P. No. 921 of 1974) a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Eradi J.) was a party, has said: