PARVATHI VARASIAR Vs. SULAIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The person in possession of the land in which there is a homestead or hut in the occupation of a kudikidappukaran is referred to as the landholder in the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Under S.75(1) of the Act, the kudikidappukaran is given a restricted fixity or immunity from eviction subject to certain conditions. He is given certain restricted rights and easements. Subject to certain conditions he is given the right under S.80A ' to purchase the kudikidappu and S.80B provides for the procedure. When once he purchases the kudikidappu, his restricted rights mature into full ownership. Thereafter, he cannot be evicted by anybody. Till then one of the restrictions imposed on his rights, of which alone we are concerned in this case, is the right given to the land-holder under S.75(2). He can require the kudikidappukaran to shift to a new site belonging to him if he bona fide requires the land

(2.) In 1971, the revision petitioners filed such an application on the ground of bona fide requirement for the construction of a building for their residence. That requirement was accepted, but the application happened to be dismissed in 1972 since they failed to pay the shifting charges. Again in 1976, they filed a second application on the same grounds. This time, the bona fide requirement itself was found against on the merits by the Land Tribunal and Appellate Authority and the application and appeal were dismissed. While the revision against that order was pending before this Court they filed the present application, O.A. 97 of 1978, on the same requirement with the only difference that the new site offered is different. Thereafter, the revision was dismissed as not pressed. Both the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority rejected the prayer on the ground of non maintainability applying the principle of res judicata. Hence they came up in revision.

(3.) A Full Bench of this Court in Koran v. Kamala Shetty ( 1977 KLT 358 ) said: