SURENDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the petitioner challenges the orders Exts. P1 and P-4, the challenge to Ext. P1 cannot be entertained for more than one reason. Firstly Ext. P1 is dated 16-7-1983. This Original Petition has been filed only on 11-4-1986 nearly 33 months thereafter. The challenge to Ext. P1 has to fail on the ground of belatedness. In any case there is also no merit in the ground of challenge to Ext. P1. The said order has been passed after notice to and hearing the petitioner. The petitioner appeared himself at the time the matter was posted for bearing on 21-6-1983. His contention as now put forward in the Original Petition is that the 4th respondent was in possession of more than one acre of land so that he was not entitled to make an application under S.75(3) of the Land Reforms Act. However, his contention before the 1st respondent Government when the proceedings were taken up was that the 4th respondent land owner was in possession of 69-1/2 cents of land only including the 19 cents on which the kudikidappu stood. His contention was that the landlord had put up a building for his residence in the other lands and that he need not therefore disturb the petitioner. He also raised before the Government at the time of hearing that the 4th respondent owned other lands in Kumarakam and Chingavanam, but nothing was done to substantiate this contention.

(2.) Government had examined the contentions put forward by the petitioner and found that the 4th respondent land owner satisfied all the conditions prescribed under S.75(3) of the Act. There is no denial of opportunity to the petitioner. The case is only one where he did not adduce any evidence in support of his claims.

(3.) The challenge to Ext. P1 has therefore to fail en both the above grounds.