PAUL Vs. THANKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "under S. 75 (1) of the KLR. Act, every kudikidappukaran has fixity and no kudikidappukaran shall be liable to be evicted from the kudikidappu except under certain conditions. S. 75 (2) of the act gives a right to the person in possession of the land on which there is a kudikidappu to shift the kudikidappu to a new site belonging to him. These provisions were in force on 1-1-1970. If the person in possession of the land on 1-1-1970 bonafide requires the area occupied by the kudikidappu for building a house for his own the kudikidappukaran has to be shifted, of course, if other conditions are satisfied. The original land owner did not want the kudikidappukaran to shift the kudikidappu when the Act was brought into force. He transferred the property to a different person subsequent to 1-1-1970 and the question for consideration is whether the latter person is entitled to claim the right conferred by S. 75 (2) to the detriment of the interest of the kudikidappu. Whenever there is change in "person possession of land", either on account of sale of property, partition or on any other account and the new landowner comes out with a request that he bonafide requires that land for constructing a house for himself or any member of his family, there is no security for a kudikidappukaran. The change in ownership of land effected on a date subsequent to 1-1-1970 cannot be a valid ground for uprooting a kudikidappukuran who otherwise gets fixity of kudikidappu under S. 75 (1)". I have no hesitation in holding that the reasoning is absolutely wrong. There is nothing wrong for a land owner to whom the property had been transferred after 1-1-1970 to come to the Court with an application on the ground that he bonafide requires the land for constructing a house for himself or for any member of his family, and if he establishes his bonafides he should be given the relief asked for. No doubt, a subsequent transfer may be a factor in considering the question of bonafides. In regard to the bonafides of the applicant the matter has been considered in detail by the Land Tribunal. The applicant as pw. 1 had deposed that he had no other land or property other than the petition schedule one for constructing a residential building He had also stated that he and his wife are employed at Cochin and at present they are residing in a rented building Probably the purchase itself was because they wanted the construction of a building at their place of employment The Land tribunal points out that the respondent was not able to produce any evidence in support of her contention that the applicant has got other land and building of his own. As rightly pointed out by the Land Tribunal, the law does not prohibit free transfer of property after the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms act. In this view, I allow the CRP. , set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and restore that of the Land Tribunal. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. . .