MUHAMMEDUNNI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no ground for interference with the order Ext P4 Petitioner sought acquisition of land under S.75(3) of the Land Reforms Act on the ground that he require the land occupied by the kudikidappu for constructing a building for his own residence. The report of Revenue Divisional officer made after inspection of the site in the presence of the petitioner was that the building owned by the petitioner's wife was convenient for the suitable habitation of the petitioner and his family. Petitioner's contention, faintly raised in his objection Ext. P3 was that the wife had been divorced, and that she was not living with him. This contention finds faint reflection in ground No. 8 of the Original petition where he says that he has declared thalak "on more than 1 1/2 decades", and so the petitioner's erstwhile wife is residing in her house which is in another village. Petitioner did not produce any evidence to substantiate this contention when the matter was argued before the Government. In fact, Government noted the absence of such evidence in rejecting the petitioner's claim in Ext. P4. It is the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the finding entered by Government that the house presently occupied by the petitioner was convenient, for the residence of the petitioner and his family. Nothing has been placed before me to show that this finding of fact arrived at by Government is either without material to support it or perverse, or otherwise illegal.

(2.) The only point that the petitioner urged before me was that S.75(3) did not require the land owner to establish bona fide requirement. This was in contra-distinction to S.75(2) which required bona fides to be established. The argument was that if the landlord expresses a requirement for the land, to construct a building, that is the last word in the matter and nothing further was required to sustain the application. I do not agree. The essential idea basic to the consideration of the matter is that the requirement of the lad owner should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith. The adjudicating authority, namely Government should consider the requirement to be reasonable. The desire of the land owner even if honest, can become a requirement in law only if it is such that on the materials placed before it, Government can consider it reasonable and therefore liable to be granted. In doing so, Government must take into account all the relevant circumstances so that the rights that are otherwise available to the kudikidappukaran are not defeated or whittled down. The requirement has to be supported by material that the land is really needed for putting up a building. If that is not established or if the landlord has other building available, which he could reasonably occupy, that will be a circumstance to hold that the landlord does not require the land for the purpose.

(3.) Ext. P4 discusses the case of the petitioner in all its aspects. Even if bona fides is not required to be established the finding is that the landlord does not require the land for the purpose of constructing a building for his own residence. This finding of fact is not liable to be challenged in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of any vitiating circumstances.