SAURIAR JOSEPH Vs. AYYAPPAN KALY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent in this revision petition is a harijan woman. She had been admittedly residing in a hut in the property from 1968 which initially was owned by the second respondent Ipe Varkey. A domestic misfortune befell her when her husband deserted her and the two children. THE revision petitioner entered the scene on 22-t-1981 by purchasing the property from the 2nd respondent. Within a short time thereafter, on 29-5-1981, the first respondent, the Harijan woman, filed before the Land Tribunal an application for the purchase of the kudikidappu. THE application for purchase, apparently infuriated the new purchaser of the property. He thought of solving the problem very quickly. THE hut itself was demolished by force. Who is there to protect a poor and helpless Harijan woman? And what could she do when she was thus virtually thrown into the street along with her little children? She could only complain to the police. This she did immediately. THE police registered a case, crime 160 of 1981. A mahazar, prepared by the police on 27-6-1981, would indicate prima facie the highhanded action on the part of the revision petitioner. THE case happened to be "referred" ultimately. THE revision is not directly concerned with that aspect. It has, however, a bearing in relation to the administration of law and justice in the country, particularly as regards the most harassed and oppressed section of society. I will refer to it later.

(2.) THE case of the applicant was that she has been staying in the hut with her two children, her husband having deserted her. She is the person in occupation of the hut, and consequently entitled to purchase the kudikidappu.

(3.) THE Land Tribunal considered the question afresh, after remand. Five documents were produced and six witnesses were examined on the side of the applicant. THE applicant herself gave evidence about the material facts as P. W. 1. Her evidence was clear and categoric that she was residing in the hut for about twelve years, and that the husband had deserted her and the children about two and half years prior to the filing of the petition. Subsequent demolition of the hut by the land owner was also spoken to by her. Her mother was examined as PW2. Independent witnesses PWs. 4 and 5 had given evidence about the long and old residence of the applicant in the hut in question.