NARAYANI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is the land owner, has filed this original petition challenging the order of the Land Tribunal No. 1 Cannanore, dated 29th June, 1984 in O.A. No. 63 of 1983. Petitioner has filed an appeal against this order before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Cannanore.

(2.) By the said order the Land Tribunal had allowed the application filed by the 3rd respondent for purchase of kudikidappu rights. Infer alia the Land Tribunal had also ordered the kudikidappukaran to be shifted to another portion of the property in exercise of the powers conferred on it under S.80A(9) of the Land Reforms Act, 1963 (the Act, in brief). The land owner is aggrieved in the first instance by the order in so far as it holds that the 3rd respondent is a kudikidappukaran It is not disputed that this part of the order is appealable under S.102 of the Act, and admittedly an appeal has been filed before the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner in regard to this matter was that there was no incumbent in the office of the Appellate Authority in Cannanore and one of the prayers in the original petition was to issue a writ of mandamus directing the State to make immediate appointment of an Appellate Authority for Cannanore, as envisaged in S, 99A of the Act. It is now stated by Sri. Govind Bharathan for the petitioner and Sri. P V. Narayanan Nambiar for the 3rd respondent that an officer has been appointed to hold the office of the Appellate Authority and that it has therefore become unnecessary to consider this relief claimed in the original petition.

(3.) The other part of the order Ext. P1 relates to the shifting of the kudikidappu under S.80A(9) of the Act. Petitioner had made an application under S.80A(9) for shifting the kudikidappukaran. This was made in the alternative, without admitting that the 3rd respondent was a kudikidappukaran, to provide against the contingency of the Land Tribunal holding him to be a kudikidappukaran. Petitioner is aggrieved in relation to the particular portion of the property to which the kudikidappukaran is directed to be 'shifted'. Petitioner has challenged that part of the order in this original petition as according to him an order pertaining to S.80A(9) is not appealable under S.102.