APPUKUTTAN Vs. JANAKI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeals by special leave and the special leave petitions raise a common question of law regarding the scope and effect of explanation II-A to Clause (25) of S. 2 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, (for short the Act hereafter) as amended by Act 17 of 1972. It is, however, necessary to mention two matters even at the outset of judgment. Had the judgments in the two appeals been pronounced after the decision in Velayudhan v. Aishabi (1981 KLT. 529: AIR 1981 Ker. 185) by a Full Bench of the Kerala High court, the results would have been different and there would have been no necessity for these appeals being filed. Secondly, the decision in Velayudhan v. Aishabi has become final since no appeal has been preferred to this Court against the judgment therein.

(2.) WHAT falls for consideration in all these cases is whether by reason of xplanation IIA to S. 2 (25) of the Act, a person in occupation of a homestead or a hut belonging to another during the period stipulated in the Explanation would become a kudikidappukaran and be entitled to kudikidappu rights under the Act.

(3.) SUBSEQUENT to this decision, the Act underwent several amendments under the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969. One of the changes effected was the substitution of Explanation II (extracted above) by a proviso which read as under: "provided that a person who, on the 16th August, 1968 was in occupation of any land and the homestead thereon, or in occupation of a hut belonging to any other person, and who continued to be in such occupation at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, shall be deemed to be inoccupation of such land and homestead, or but, as the case may be with permission as required under this clause. (Emphasis supplied ).