MARIYUMMA Vs. BEEPATHUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the applicant in proceedings under S. 80b of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. THE claim of the revision petitioner as Kudikidappukaran was ultimately rejected by the Land tribunal finding that the building used as homestead is not a hut. THE appellate authority confirmed the order.

(2.) THE contention taken up on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the authorities below in holding that the building is not a but had erred in not acting upon the original report filed by the authorised officer ignoring Ext. C2 report filed by the Commissioner and Ext. C3 the further report by the authorised officer. THE argument advanced is that the report filed in the first instance is to be treated as a report of a commissioner and without setting aside the same a second Commission should not have been issued and therefore the second report as also the further verification report cannot be looked into.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY verification reports have been obtained in the present case. The further verification report has been necessitated in view of the subsequent events after the first report was filed. The Revenue inspector has, in the second report, valued the building at a cost exceeding rs. 750/ -. The report of the Commissioner and the verification report had been duly considered by the Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion that the building is not a hut. The appellate authority has examined the correctness of that finding by scrutiny of the entire evidence. The materials before the lower authorities could not be ignored and has been rightly relied on. As the evidence fully supports the finding that the building is not a hut, the conclusion that the revision petitioner is not entitled to kudikidappu right is valid and cannot be assailed as erroneous in law. I find no merit in the revision. The revision dismissed. No costs. . .