VELAYUDAN Vs. VARKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for purchase of his kudikidappu (O. A. 149/77) under S.80A and 80B of Act 1/64, claiming that the dwelling house in question was put up by him in 1964 at a cost of about Rs.250/- and that he was residing in it for well over 13 years. When examined before the Land Tribunal as PW 1, however, his version was slightly different. The landlord had seven cents of land, and there was a but almost centrally located in it, which he bad let out to some other person, for being used as a tea shop. That person left it, and the hut remained unoccupied for some time, and in disrepair. In 1964 the petitioner occupied it and effected some repairs. But in 1971 he was persuaded to shift to the southern corner of the seven cents, lying at a lower level than the rest of the property. Thereafter the extent in his occupation, including the site of the hut newly erected by him, was only about 2 cents. The landlord had fenced up the rest of the property and was cultivating it himself.

(2.) The Authorised Officer's report was also more or less on the same lines. Of the seven cents, one cent had been taken up by a Panchayat road. The petitioner was occupying about 2 cents at the southern end, and the remaining four cents was separately enclosed by the landlord and was being cultivated by him. Local enquiries revealed that this was the position from 1971, though before that period, the petitioner and his family were living in a hut which was then in existence within the area fenced up by the landlord.

(3.) The landlord had a different story; but we are now not concerned with its veracity or details. The Land Tribunal noticed that there was virtually do dispute as to who had constructed the dwelling house in the two cents: it was put up by the applicant, and he was therefore entitled to claim kudikidappu. Of course, the Tribunal bad some doubt whether a Kudikidappu claim could be accepted in respect of the hut which was there in 1964. It said:-