KUNHAMBU Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The crucial question which arises in the revision petition filed in 1983 and in the second appeal filed in 1986 is the entitlement of the petitioner/appellant to the benefits of a kudikidappukaran, as provided under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) That he was in occupation of a hut for over three decades is borne out by the records including the report of the authorised officer. There was a vague contention about the house in which the kudikidappukaran was residing did not answer the description of a but as defined in the Act. That is not seen pursued before any of the authorities below. That is not permitted to be raised in the revisional/second appellate stage.

(3.) The status of kudikidappu was denied solely on the ground that be was assigned one acre of land, in the course of the distribution of surplus land among the agricultural labourers under the scheme of the Act. According to the report of the authorised officer, the assigned plot was not plain land; it contained a few cashew plants; the distance to that plot from the existing kudikidappu by road was about nine kilometres.