IBRAHIMKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Kudikidappukaran is before this court challenging Ext. P6. The first respondent Landlord filed an application under S.75(3) of Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 to shift the Kudikidappu of the petitioner situated in 29 cents of land possessed by the first respondent. The application was allowed as per Ext. P1. That was under challenge before this court. This court set aside Ext. P1 as it was issued by an incompetent authority. Ext. P2 is 'that Judgment. Government considered the issue and decided in favour of the petitioner in Ext. P3 Government Order. The first respondent challenged it. Ext. P3 was set aside in Ext. P4 Judgment. The Government in Ext. P3 decided that there was no 'dire necessity' to the landlord in order to shift the Kudikidappu. This was not proper. So it was directed in Ext. P4 judgment by this court to consider "whether the petitioner requires the land for constructing the building for his own purpose". Based on that direction the parties were heard. Ext. P5 is the hearing note submitted by the petitioner. By Ext. P6, the shifting of the Kudikidappu was allowed.

(2.) It is contented by the counsel for the petitioner that the Government failed to examine an important point as to whether the landlord "requires the land occupied by the Kudikidappukaran for constructing the building for his own residence". Only when there is such requirement, a landlord can apply under S.75(3) to shift the Kudikidappu. In the absence of such requirement an application under Sub-section 3 of S.75 will not lie.

(3.) A reading on Ext. P6 discloses that the only issues considered by the Government were, whether