K. RAMACHANDRAN Vs. K. IBRAHIMKUTTY,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS the appellant entitled to get the benefit of Section 75(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and get the kudikidappukaran shifted from his property? The fact finding authority and the learned Single Judge have answered the above question in the negative. It is thus the appellant is before us impugning the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) THE appellant moved an application under Section 75(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') way back in the year 1970. The said proceeding has had a long and chequered career. Initially the application filed by the appellant was allowed. It is on record that the appellant had in fact remitted the requisite amount as directed by the Government. However, the said order was set aside by this Court and the Government was directed to reconsider the matter. Thereafter, the Government allowed the application for shifting. But the said order was set aside by this Court and the Government was directed to reconsider the matter again. Though on this occasion Government ordered shifting of Kudikidappu, the said order was set aside by this Court at the instance of respondent No. 1, the Kudikidappukaran. The Government considered the matter afresh, as directed by this Court and held under Ext. P5 order that the appellant was not entitled to get the kudikidappukaran shifted from his land under Section 75(3) of the Act. The above order was challenged in the original petition. However, as mentioned earlier, the learned Single Judge upheld the view taken by the Government. Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE above contention raised by the learned Counsel is undoubtedly impressive in first blush. However, it has to be noticed that Section 75(3) of the Act is intended to benefit those landowners who have no other land of their own to construct a residential building for their occupation. Yet again Section 75(3) of the Act would apply only in cases where the total extent of the holding is below one acre. In the case on hand, the appellant admittedly is in possession of 29 cents out of which the kudikidappukaran occupies 10 cents in one corner. It had further come out in evidence that the appellant/landlord has constructed four shop rooms and one godown in that property and let out on rent. Apart from the above it was admitted by the appellant himself that he owned 62 cents of land out of which he transferred 40 cents to the name of his wife. He has been admittedly residing in a two storeyed residential building with his wife in that property.