Skip to content


Parvathy Vs. State of Kerala and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P. No. 1203 of 1979-C
Judge
Reported inAIR1981Ker239
ActsKerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 - Sections 2(25) and 80B; Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969
AppellantParvathy
RespondentState of Kerala and ors.
Appellant Advocate T.L. Ananthasivan and; P.K. Jose, Advs.
Respondent Advocate Harihara Iyer, Adv. and;Govt. Pleader
DispositionRevision allowed
Cases ReferredLakshmanan v. Ariyavi
Excerpt:
- - 1. a short but interesting point has been raised in this revision arising out of an order passed by the appellate authority (land reforms), erna-kulam, in l. kunhiraman (1973 ker lt 14) that the requirement would be satisfied if the petitioner was having an extent of not less than 10 cents of land in the aggregate, 3. for one thing, the decision relied by by the appellate authority, namely, damodaran v......in l.r.a.s. no. 1329 of 1977 dated 17-1-1979 whereunder in reversal of the order passed by the land tribunal, vypeen, in o.a. no. 1804 of 1971, the appellate authority dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner under section 80-b of the kerala land reforms act, act 1 of 1964 as amended by act xxxv of 1969, for short the act,2. it is not necessary to trace the history of the litigation between the petitioner and the respondents. suffice it to say that the only question that falls for decision in this revision is whether to satisfy the requirement of 'any land' referred to in section 2 (25) of the act it would be enough to have an aggregate of 10 cents of land or whether it is necessary to have a compact area of 10 cents. the land tribunal in a rather elaborate order.....
Judgment:
ORDER

K. Bhaskaran, J.

1. A short but interesting point has been raised in this revision arising out of an order passed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Erna-kulam, in L.R.A.S. No. 1329 of 1977 dated 17-1-1979 whereunder in reversal of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Vypeen, in O.A. No. 1804 of 1971, the Appellate Authority dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act XXXV of 1969, for short the Act,

2. It is not necessary to trace the history of the litigation between the petitioner and the respondents. Suffice it to say that the only question that falls for decision in this revision is whether to satisfy the requirement of 'any land' referred to in Section 2 (25) of the Act it would be enough to have an aggregate of 10 cents of land or whether it is necessary to have a compact area of 10 cents. The Land Tribunal in a rather elaborate order took the view that the fact that the petitioner was holding 8 cents in one survey number and 2 1/2 cents in another survey number, lying separate and away from each other, by itself would not deprive her of her right to purchase the kudikidappu under Section 80-B of the Act. In reversal of the decision of the Land Tribunal, the Appellate Authority has held, relying on the decision of this Court in Damodaran v. Kunhiraman (1973 Ker LT 14) that the requirement would be satisfied if the petitioner was having an extent of not less than 10 cents of land in the aggregate,

3. For one thing, the decision relied by by the Appellate Authority, namely, Damodaran v. Kunhiraman (1973 Ker LT 14), which found approval by a Division Bench of this Court in Kumaran v. Pra-bhakaran Pillai (1977 Ker LT 53) has subsequantly been overruled by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Lakshmanan v. Ariyavi (1979 Ker LT 126). For another thing, on a simple reading of the section it is fairly clear, particularly by the use of the expression 'any land', the provision to become meaningful, the 10 cents should be of a compact area, not scattered. The real test is whether the occupier of the kudikidappu is holding in his own right an item of immovable property which would provide a suitable site with reasonable convenience to erect a homestead. The minimum of 10 cents in a village prescribed is for that very purpose, not for assessing his material wealth or worldly possession. In this view, the judgment of the Appellate Authority reversing the order of the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained; and it has to be set aside. I, therefore, allow the revision, set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and restore the order of the Land Tribunal: in the peculiar circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //