G. Viswanatha Iyer, J.
1. This original petition is filed by a kudikidappukaran against the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Alan-gad directing him to shift to a new site offered by the landlord Respondent. The Respondent land owner applied under Section 77 of the Land Reforms Act to shift the kudikidappu situated in the A-schedule property belonging to him and occupied by the petitioner. He alleged that he bona fide required the land for an industrial purpose, namely, the conduct of choola business, he also agreed to transfer a new site fit for erecting a homestead and also to pay the reasonable cost of shifting the kudikidappu to the new site. The petitioner opposed that application on the wound that the claim is not bona fide and it is made only as a counterblast to his application for purchase of kudikidappu.
The amount offered for shifting the kudikidappu was also stated to be inadequate. The Land Tribunal found that the land is required for the conduct of choola business and therefore the kudikidappu must be shifted from that place. The Land Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the alternate, site offered is fit for erecting a homestead and then directed the respondent to execute a transfer deed for 10 cents of land in the B-schedule property and also pay a sum of Rs. 750/- towards shifting charges to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to shift his kudikidappu to the new site within two months from the date of that order. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this writ petition.
2. The first point urged by the petitioner is that the land is not required bona fide by the land owner for any industrial purpose. The Land Tribunal madea local inspection to understand the conflicting statements made by the petitioner and the respondent and considering the evidence of the respondent and also the evidence of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the claim made by the land-owner is bona fide and that the kudikidappu must be shifted to a new site.
The petitioner contended that the property in which the kudikidappu is situated has sot an area of nearly 2 acres and if the site where the kudikidappu is situate is required for any industrial purpose he may be asked to shift to another part of the same property instead of being asked to shift to a new site. On this point it is the right of the land-owner, if he requires this land for an industrial purpose, to ask the kudikidappukaran to shift to a new site. He cannot be compelled to ask the kudikidappukaran to shift to another part of the same property. Therefore, in the light of the finding that this land is bona fide required for an industrial purpose by the land-owner the conclusion arrived at by the Land Tribunal on this point cannot be said to be incorrect.
3. The second point urged by the petitioner is that the alternate site has been found to be suitable for residential purpose only on the basis of the local inspection made by the Land Tribunal. In this connection it has to be stated that the only point that was urged by the petitioner before the Land Tribunal regarding the alternate site was that there are no improvements in the alternate site and therefore he cannot be asked to shift to that place from the existing site. The existence or non-existence of improvements in the alternate site is not a relevant matter to be considered at all. The only point that has to be looked into before the kudikidappukaran is asked to shift to a new site is to find out whether the alternate site is fit for erecting a homestead. On this point there is no challenge by the petitioner.
Therefore, even though in the order the Land Tribunal has stated that he inspected the site and found that though there are no improvements, the site is fit to erect a homestead, that cannot be said to be the only factor relied on by the Land Tribunal in holding that the alternate site is suitable for residential purpose.
4. The third point urged by the petitioner is that the application is not maintainable under the amended Act has amended by Act 25 of 1971). The contention is elaborated this way. Before an application for shifting the kudikidappu is made the kudikidappukaran must be given one month's notice by registered post and before a notice is issued the land-owner must make a requisition to the kudikidappukaran to shift to the new site and only if he failed to shift to the new site his right to apply will arise and after his right to apply arises he must give one month's notice by registered post to the kudikidappukaran. This has not been done in this case. The counsel for the petitioner referred me to the copy of the notice issued by the land-owner to the kudikidapnukaran and contended that the notice does not refer to any previous request made by the land-owner to the kudikidappukaran to shift to the new site.
This contention is also not sustainable. Under Section 77 a right to apply to shift a kudikidappu to a new site will arise if the kudikidappukaran on a request made by the land-owner does not comoly with it. The notice in this case clearly shows that the land-owner requested the kudikidappukaran to shift to the new site. It is not necessary that a request must be made to the kudikidappukaran before the issue of the notice. The notice itself is the statutory mode of requisition prescribed by Section 77. Therefore, on this Point also I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Land Tribunal.
5. It is needless to state that the petitioner need shift to the new site only within two months after the respondent transfers the new site to the petitioner and deposits the amount of Rs. 750/-towards shifting charges.
6. In the result, subject to the above direction, the original petition is dismissed. But, in the circumstances. I make no order as to costs.