SIVARAJAN Vs. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is against the judgment of the learned judge who allowed O. P. No. 2968 of 1974 holding that the Land Tribunal had no competence to entertain or decide the application for shifting the kudikidappu under S. 77 of the Act, after the purchase certificate was issued under S. 80-C of the Act in the circumstances and facts to be noticed presently. THE writ petitioner filed an application for purchase of the kudikidappu rights under S, 80-B of the Act on 17 31972 (O A. No. 358 of 1972 ). By an ex parte order, the application was allowed on 7 61972. THE respondent in the writ petition who is the appellant before us, filed an appeal A. A. No. 1301 of 1972 on 14-8-1972. That appeal was allowed on 20 81973. Pending appeal, a certificate of purchase under S. 80-C of the Act was issued on 2nd September 1972 Meanwhile, the landowner (appellant) had filed on 18 61973, O. A. No. 139 of 1973 to shift the kudikidappu under S. 77 of the Act. THE said, application was allowed by Ext. R2 order dated 24-1-1974. A petition for review was filed. That application was dismissed and a revised order Ext. P1 was passed on 15 4 974. That revised order directed the Land-lord to produce the title deed in respect of the 3 cents of land and to remit the shifting charges and further directed the kudikidappukaran to shift to the site provided for. It was to quash this order that the writ petition was filed.

(2.) THE main contention that was urged in the writ petition was that, as the purchase certificate was issued on 2 91972, the same will operate as a bar to the application for shifting. This contention found favour with the learned Judge. THE position is now canvassed before us.

(3.) A combined reading of the Sections extracted, leads to this result: Under the proviso to S 77 (2) it is only the issuance of a purchase certificate under S. 80-C that will operate as a bar against the passing of an order for shifting the kudikidappu under S. 77. Under the proviso to sub-s. (3) of S. 80-B, there is an embargo against passing an order on an application for purchase of kudikidappu during the pendency of an application for shifting under S. 77; and under sub-s. (1) of S. 80-C, the obligation to deposit the first instalment of the purchase price is only within a period of six months from the date on which the order of the Land Tribunal under S 80-B has become final. The argument of counsel for the appellant is, that it is only if the order directing the purchase of kudikidappu rights has become final and conclusive that it can have the effect of barring an application for shifting the kudikidappu under S. 77 of the Act. We think there is force in this contention. The position thus taken up was supported by the learned Advocate general to whom we issued notice. After careful consideration, we accept the said contention. Any other way of construing or interrelating the Sections seems to us to be productive of injustice.