Supreme Court of India
MAMMUversusHARI MOHAN AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2000 INSC 11
- Decided
- 7 January 2000
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
A remand order is not a final order under Section 103(1)(i), so revision is maintainable, and the structure is appurtenant, rendering the appellant ineligible for kudikidappu rights.
Summary
The appellant, a tenant, sought purchase of kudikidappu rights under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The Land Tribunal dismissed his application, but the Appellate Authority allowed it. The High Court, on revision, set aside the Appellate Authority’s order, remanded the matter for fresh consideration, and held that the structure in question was merely an appurtenant to the shop room, not an independent building, thus the tenant could not claim kudikidappu. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the Appellate Authority’s remand order was a "final order" under Section 103(1)(i) and whether the tenant could claim kudikidappu. The Court held that a remand order is not a final order, making the revision petition maintainable, and affirmed the High Court’s finding that the structure was not independent, so the tenant was not a kudikidappukaran for it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Appellate Authority remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal constitutes a 'final order' under Section 103(1)(i) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and is therefore subject to revision.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to claim kudikidappu rights in respect of the structure, i.e., whether the structure is an independent building or merely an appurtenant to the shop room.
Legislation cited
- Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963s. 102, s. 103, s. 2(25), s. 80A, s. 80-B
Subjects
kudikidappuKerala Land Reforms Actrevisionfinal orderappellate authorityland tribunaltenant rightsproperty law
Judgment
A MAMMU
v.
HARi MOHAN A."ID ANR.
JANUARY 7, 2000
B
[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.]
Kera/a Land Refonns Act, 1963: Sections BOA, BOB and 103-Applica-
tion for purchase of kudikidappu rights filed by the appellant/tenant dismissed
-
by the Land Tribunal-Appeal before the Appellate Authority allowed-Jn
C revision, High Coun remanded matter back to the Appellate Authority for
reconsideration-Appellate Authority passed order in favour of the appellant
tenant:-Order of the Land Tribunal set aside-Case remanded back to Land
Tribunal-Land Tribunal held appellant entitled to a part of lan!l-Sub-
sequent order of the Land Tribunal challenged in appeal-Appeal dismissed
D by Appellate Authority on the ground that its previous order was conclusive
as it was not challenged in revision-Revision against subsequent order of the
Appellate Authority allowed-On appeal, Held: Section 103( l)(i) of the Act
conveys that a revision cannot be filed against an interlocutory order passed
in appeaf-Order not disposing of an appeal is not a final ordei--Order of
E remand is not on interlocutory ordel'-Revision petition maintainable against
an order of remand by the Appellate Authority.
The respondent had let out a room to the appellant which was
originally constructed as shop room. The appellant filed applications for
purchase of kudikidappu rights, under Section 80-B of the Kerala Land
F Reforms Act, 1963, before the Land Tribunal, which was dismissed.
Appellant's appeal before the Appellate Authority was allowed holding that
the appellant was a kudikidappukaran entitled to purchase the kudikidappu.
The respondent's challenge to the said order in revision was allowed by
the High Court. The order of the Appellate Authority was set aside and
the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for fresh dis-
G posal on consideration of different factors like difference between the
building and the structure, object for which and the circumstance under
which the structure was allowed to be constructed etc. After the remand,
the Appellate Authority passed an order in favour of the appellant as a
result of which the appeal was allowed and order of Land Tribunal was
H set aside and the case WdS remanded back to the Land Tribunal for
84
MAM.Ml.'. V. HARl ~IOHA."11 85
granting of kudikidappu right to the appellant. The Land Tribunal found A
the appellant entitled to 10 cents of land as kudikidappu. Said order of the
U'nd Tribunal W"ds challenged in appeal by the respondent before the
Appellate Authority which was dbmissed on the finding that since the
previous order of the Appellate Authority was a final order and since that
order was not challenged in revision it became final and conclusive.
Challenge to this order of the Appellate Authority was allowed by the High
B
Court in revision. The High Court, overruling the objecticn I"dised by the
appellant against maintainability of the revision, held that order of the
Appellate Authority cannot be a final order deciding upon the rights and
liabilities of the parties or their mutual obligations. On merits, the High
Court held that the structure in question was not an independent structure c
and it was only an adjunct or appurtenance to the shop room let out to
tbe appellant with respect to which, the claim of kudikidappu would not lie.
Hence the present appeal.
The issues involved in this appeal were whether the order of the
Appellate Authority remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal with a D
direction to pass order in the light of the observationsidirections in the
order is a 'final order' within the meaning of Section 103 (1) of the Act and
whether the finding of the High Court that the appellant cannot claim
kudiktdappu in respect of the structure in question is sustainable in law.
E
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. Clause (i) of sub·Section (1) of Section 103 of the Kerala
Land Reforms Act, 1963 provides that any final order passed in an appeal
is available to be challenged in revision by any person aggrieved by such F
order. The clear and unambiguous language in which the section is
couched conveys the meaning that a revision petition cannot be filed
against an interlocutory order passed in an appeal. An order which does
not dispose of the appeal is not a 'final order'. An order of remand in which
the matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal for disposal in accordance
v;ith law cannot be said to be an interlocutory order for the simple reason G
that the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority stands disposed by
such order. In a case where the Appellate Authority keeps the proceeding
pending and calls for a finding on a specific issue or point formulated by
it from the Land Tribunal or any other Authority, then such an order
cannot be said to be a final order against which a revision could be filed H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 1 S.C.R.
A before the High Court. The reasoning that a 'final order' is one which
disposes of the proceeding before the Land Tribunal is clearly erroneous
and therefore, the finding of the High Court in the impugned order that
no revision petition could be filed against the order of remand passed by
the Appellate Authority is erroneous. [91-E-H, 92-F]
B
Alahadevan Iyer v. Bhagwati Ammal, (1979) Kerala Law Times 910,
aflirmed.
_Joseph v. Velayudlian Pillai, (1976) Kerala Law Times 870 and Bhas-
C kara Menon v. Gangadharan, (1983) Kerala Law Times 435, overruled.
2.1. In the present case, High Court has taken note of exception to
-
the order of the Land Tribunal on the ground that it failed to talte note of
relevant factors like the facts and circumstances under which the structure
D was allowed to be constructed, whether it was free or subject to payment
of rent, the existence of similar structures erected by the other tenant in
the building and whether the structure with respect to which kudikidappu
was claimed was really a part of the building which was let out to the
appellant or it was an independent or separate structure. The High Court
E further observed that the Land Tribunal decided the case in favour of the
appellant taking note of only one factor, that there is a distance of about
3/4 kale between the two structures. The High Court has also found that,
even though the building was referred to as a shop building (originally),
the appellant was residing in that while running his motor pump repair
F business in a portion, even before constructing the lean-to or charthu In
question. On the basis of such facts and circumstances appearing from
evidence on record, the High Court came to the finding that the structure
with respect to which kudikidappu is claimed is not an independent struc·
ture; it is only an adjunct or appurtenant to the shop room previously let
out to the appellant. The facts and circumstances noted in the impugned
G judgment are relevant and germane for the purpose of determining the
question whether the appellant's claim that he is a kudikidappukaran with
respect to the structure in question and as such entitled to purchase the·
property. The High Court cannot be faulted either in fact or in law for
having held that the appellant is not a kudikidappukaran with respect to
H the structure in question. [95-C-G]
MAMMUv. HARIMOHAN[MOHAPAlRA,J.j 87
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2560 of A
1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.96 of the Kerala High
Court in C.R.P. No. 2495 of 1989-D.
B.V. Deepak for Ajit Pudussery for the Appellant. B
T.L.V. Iyer, (Ramesh Babu, M.R.) for N. Sudhakaran for the
Respondent No. 1.
Ms. Malini Poduval, Lan Singh Rongmir for Respondent No. 2.
c
The Judgment of the Court w~ delivered by
MOHAPATRA, J. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and
Order of the High Court of Kerala dated 29th November, 1996 in CRP No.
2495 of 1989. The said revision petition was filed by the respondent hcn:in
under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 (hcreinafter D
referred to as 'the Act') chalfonging the Judgment dated 31.L1989 of thi::
Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Thrissur in AA No. 93/88. The High
Court having allowed the revision petition on the finding that the respon-
dent therein is not a Kudikidappukaran with respect to the structure in
question. The respondent in the revision petition has filed this appeaL E
The relevant facts necessary for appreciating the controversy may be
stated thus :
The respondent Hari Mohan owns an extent of 28.5 cents of proper-
ty in Survey No. 683/3 of Lakamaleswaram Village. In that property there F
is a building with four sets of rooms originally constructed as shop rooms.
The said four rooms were separately let out to four persons including the
appellant All the four tenants filed original applications before the Land
Tribunal for purchase of kudikidappu right under Section 80-B of the Act.
The application filed by the appellant was registered as O.A. No. 580 of
1973. All the applications were dismissed by the Land Tribunal, Kodum- G
galloor. Excepting the appellant the other tenants did not pursue the
matter further. The appellant filed A.A. No. 715/76 before the Appellate
Authority (Land Reforms), Trichur which was allowed holding that the
appeHant is a kudikidappukaran entitled to purchase the kudikidappu. The
said order was cha!lt:nged by the respondent in C.R.P. 2718;77 which was H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) 1 S.C.R.
A allowed by the High Court by Order dated 25.4.1980; the order of the
Appellate Authority was set aside and the matter was remanded to the
Appellate Authority for fresh disposal with the following observations :
''Fur dctt:rmining this question several factors will have to be taken
into account - the distance between the building and the structure,
B the ubji.:ct for which and the circumstances under which the struc-
ture was allowed to be constructed, whether it was free or subject
to the payment of rent, the existence of similar structures executed
by the other tenants in the building, and other relevant circumstan-
ces. The Appellate Authority has not considered these various
c factors but has gone only by the distance of about 3/4 kole which
separates the structure from the building. After hearing both sides
I am of the view that this omission has vitiated the order. The
Appdlate Authority has then:fore to be required to consider the
matter again.''
D After the remand, the Appellate Authority passed an order in favour
of the appellant. The relevant portion of the order reads.
"It is seen that it is a separate building which has no connection
with thi;: main building, as observed by the Appellate Authorit)
earlier that there is about 3/4 kale distanet: between the structure
E
and the building. It has also been stated that the applicant was
\
permitted to reside with family when his wife had to undergo
treatment. It has been pointed out that rent was paid for the
structure and that the rent paid for the main building included that
of the charthu also. It is an admitted fact that the charthu has been
F constructed by the appellant. Therefore I do not find any reason
to believe that it is not an independent hut. It was argued that the
property in question lies within the local limits of Kodungallur
Municipality. The Land Tribunal will consider this question also !
when the area of kudikidappu is fixed. '·
G In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the Land
..'
~
Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the lower court ' l
for granting kudikidappu right to the appdlant in the light of the
directions given above.''
H The abovt: order was not challenged in revision. The Land Tribunal
MAMMU v. HARI MOHAN [MO HAP ATRA, J.] 89
.- found that tb.e appellant was entitled to lO cents of land as kudikidappu A
and the certificate of purchase with respect to 7.73 cents which was the
only available area was in order. That ordt:r was challenged in appeal by
the respondent before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was dismissed
on the finding, inter alia, that tht: previous order of tht: Appellatt: Authority
was a final ordt:r and since that order was not challenged in revision it has
become final and conclusive. The ordt:r of the Appdlatt: Authority was
B
challenged in revision bt:fore tht: High Court which was allowed by the
impugned order.
From the discussion in the impugned order, it appears that the main
issue raised before the High Court was whether the order of the Appellate c
Authority remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal was a final order and
therefore was available to be challenged in revision, or it was merely an
interlocutory order against which no revision could be filed. Reliance
appears to have been placed on certain previous decisions of the Kerala
High Court in 1976 Kerala Law Times 870 Joseph v. Velayudhan Pillai, D
(1979) Kerala Law Times 910 Mahadevan Iyer v. Bhagavaty Ammal and
(1983) Kerala Law Times 435 Bhaskara Menon v. Gangadharan. In thc light
of the decisions noted above particularly in Bhaskara Menon v. Gangad-
haran (supra), the view was taken that the 'final order' within the mcaning
of Section 103 of the Act must be an order which puts an end to the
litigation betwcen thc parties, and an order of remanJ in which direction E
is issued to thc concernt:d authority for doing certain things in relation to
the liability or obligation of the partics is not a final order. The High Court
in the impugned order hdd that the order of the Appellate Authority
cannot be a final order deciding upon the rights and liability of the partit:s
or their mutnal obligations. Then:fore the objection against maintainability
F
of the Civil Revision Petition raised by appellant was ovcrruled.
On merits of the case the High Court considen:d the question
\ whethcr the structure with respect to which kudikidappu was claimed was
'
really a part of the bnilding which was let out to the appellant or it was an
independent and separate structure. Analysing the point the High Court G
observed that in case it was held that the structure in question was a part
of the bnilding which was let out to the appellant the claim of kudikidappu
is to fail. The High Court quoted the relevant observations/directions made
by the court in the remand order in C.R.P. 2718 of 1977 which have been
quoted earlier. H
90 SUPREME COCRT REPORTS (2000] l S.C.R.
A Analysing in detail the evidence on n:cord in the light of the relevant
factors noted in the previous remand order the High Court came to the
conclusion that the structure in question is not an indt:pendent structure
and it is only an adjunct or appurtenance to the shop room let out to the
appellant. On the basis of the said finding the High Court hdd that with
respect to such an appurtenant structure, the claim of kudikidappu will
B not lie. The High ( :ourt faulted the order of the Appellate Authority under
challenge on the ground that the authority did not pay attention to different
relevant factors noted in the previous remand order of the High Court and
passed its order on consideration of only one factor, that is, the distance
of 3/4 kole between the structure which was let out to the appellant and
C the structure in respect of which the claim of kudikidappu was made is
noted above. The revision petition was allowed and the order of the
Appellate Authority upholding the kudikidappu right was set aside.
On the case pleaded by the parties and the findings recorded by the
Land Tribunal, the Appellate Authority and the High Court in the orders
D passed in the proceedings, two questions emerge for consideration (1)
whether the High Court was right in holding that th order passed by the
Appellate Authority remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal was not a
final order and thi::refore, not challengeable in revision before the High )
Court and (2) wht:ther the finding of the High Court that the appellant ~
E cannot claim kudikidappu right in respect of the structure in question is \
sustainablt: in law. \
-<.:,"
Section 103 of the Act, so far as it ts material for the present I
proceeding, is quoted hereunder :
j
F ''103. Revision by High Court : (1) Any person aggrieved by - l
j
"(i) any final order passed in an appeal against the order of the '
Land Tribunal or;
(ii) any final order passed by the Land Board under this Act or;
G
(iii) any final order of the Taluk Land Board under this Act,
,\
xxx xxx xxx
may, within such time as may be prescribed, prefer a petition to
H the High Court against the order on the ground that the appellate
MAMMU v. HAR! MOHAN[MOHAPATRA,J.) 91
- authority or the Land Board, or the Taluk Land Board, as the case
may be, has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any
question of law.
A
(2) The High Court may, after giving an opportunity to the parties
to be heard, pass such orders as it deems fit and the orders
of the appellate authority or the Land Board, or the Taluk B
Land Board, as the case may be shal~ wherever necessary, be
modified accordingly".
The question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the
order of the Appellate Authority remanding the matter to the Land c
Tribunal with a direction to pass order in the light of the observa-
tions/directions in the order is a 'final order' within the meaning of Section
103(1) of the Act? The Kerala High Court in certain decisions has taken
the view that only an order which disposes of a proceeding before the Land
Tnbunal can be said to be a 'final order' and against such an order, a D
revision petition shall lie; any other order of the appellate authority which
does not dispose of the proceeding before the Land Tribunal cannot be
said to be a 'final order' and no other revision petition shall lie against such
an order. This interpretation, in our considered view, does not flow from
the language of the statutory provision. Clause (i) of sub-section (1) of
Section 103 provides that any final order passed in an appeal is available E
to be challenged in revision by any person aggrieved by such order. The
clear and unambiguous language in which the section is couched conveys
the meaning that a revision petition cannot be filed against an interlocutory
order passed in an appeal. To put it differently, an order which does not
dispose of the appeal is not a 'final order'. An order of remand in which F
the matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal for disposal in accordance:
with faw cannot be said to be an interlocutory order for the simple rt:ason
that the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority stand disposed of by
such order. In a case where the Appellate Authority keeps the proceeding
pending and calls for a finding on a specific issut: or point formulated by
it from the Land Tribunal or any other Authority, then such an order G
cannot be said to be a final order against which a revision can bt: filed
before the High Court. The reasoning in some of the Judgments of the
Kerala High Court, particularly in Bhaskara Menon v. Gangadharan,
(supra) and in Joseph v. Velayudhan Pillai, (supra) that a 'final order' is
one which disposes of the proceeding befort; Land Tribunal, in our view, H
92 SUPREME C'OURT IU- PORTS (200UJ 1 S.C.R.
A is clearly erroneous. The view taken by the High Court in 1979 Kerala Law
Times 910, MahadevflJJ Iyer v. Bhagavaty Animal is extrackd :
··a literal understanding uf sub-seetiun (i) uf S. l03 only .. means
« ..
that then: must be an appeal from an order of the land Tribunal
and the appdlate order should b..: a final one as distinguished from
B an interlocutory order. The final ordt:r must dispose of the appeal.
The words "lmal order in an appeal" mean only that and this is all
that is contLmplated by the Legislature will be clear from the
nature of the appeals provided for under S. 102 of the Act to the
Appellate Authority. An appeal will lie from any order passed by
c the Land Trihunal under the various sections enumerated is S. 102.
Such orders may be either orders of final disposal of the proceed-
ing taken before the Land Tribunal or may be only preliminary
orders which conclusively determine the status of the parties and
direct incidental enquiries leading to a final order by the Land
Tribunal closing the proceedings. Such being the character of the
D orders against which appeals can be filed before the Appellate
Authority 'final order' passed in an appeal against the order of the
Land Tribunal'' S. 103(1)(i) can only an order finally disposing of
the proceedings initiated befon: the Land Tribunal. Finality must
relatt: to the appeal only and not to the Land Tribunal proceedings.
E Tu understand or tu interpret the 'cction to mean final order
disposing of the Land Reform prm:cedings un appeal will b.:
recasting the section which is not allow.:d",
That view has our approval. Therdore, the finding uf the High Court in
the impugned order that no revision petition could be filed against the
F order of remand passtd by the Appdlak Authority is erroneous. The first
question is answtred in the negative .
Coming to the si;:;cond question, which relates to the merits of the
cc.;se, the High Court has discusstd in detail, the facts and circumstances
G emerging from the evidence on record, which go to show that the structure
in respect of which the kudikidappu right is claimed is not a separate and
independent structure, but only an appurtenant or adjunct of the shop
room which was previously let out to the appellant. In this connection it is
relevant to note a few r ~levant provisions of tht: Act.
--.
H 'Section 2(25) : "kudik:dappukaran" means a person who has
f>
MAMMU v. HARi MOHAN '.MOHAPATRA, J.j 93
neither a homestead nor any land exceeding in extent three cents A
in any city or major municipality or five cents in any other
municipality or ten cents in any panchayat an:a or township, in
- possession dther as owner or as tenant, on which he could erect
a homestead and ·
(a) who has been permitted with or without an obligation to pay B
rent by a person in lawful possession of any land to have the
use and occupation of a portion of such land for the purpose
of erecting a homestead; or
(b) who has been permitted by a person in lawful possession of C
any land to occupy with or without an obligation to pay rent
a hut belonging to such person and situate in the said land;
and "kudikidappu;' means th..: land and the homestead or the
hut so permitted to be erected or occupied together with the
casements attached thereto".
D
Section 80A, which is the provision regarding right of
'Kudikidappukaran' to purchase the 'kudikidappu' rights reads as
under:
'Right of kudikidappukaran to purchase his kudikidappu: (1)
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contaim:d in any law for
E
the time in force, a kudikidappukaran shall, subject to the
provisions of this section, have the rights to purchase the
lrudikidappu occupied by him and lands adjoining thereto.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec- F
tion (1), where the total extent of land held by
the person in possession of the land in which the
kudikidappu is situate, either as owner or as
tenant is less than one acre, the kudikidappu and
lands adjoining thereto only in cases where the
person in possession of the land in which the G
kudikidappu is situate does not apply to the
Government under sub-section (3) of Section 75
for the acquisition of the land to which the
kudikidappu may be shifted, within a period of
two years from the commencement of the Kerala H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 1 S.C.R.
A Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969:
Provided that in a case where the person in possession has applied
under sub-section (3) of Section 75, the kudikidappukaran shall be
entitled to purchase his kudikidappu and lands adjoining thereto
if such application by the person in possession of the land is
-
B rejected or if such person fails to pay the expenses for shifting the
kudikidappu as required by sub-section (3C) of Section 75.
(3) The extent of and which the kudikidappukaran is entitled to
purchase under this section shall be three cents in a city or
major municipality or five cents in any other municipality or
c ten cents in a panchayat area or township :
Provided that where the land available for purchase in the land in \
which the kudikidappu is situate, is less than the extent specified
in this sub-section, the kudikidappukaran shall be entitled to pur-
D chase only the land available for purchase or, as the case may be,
the land in which the kudikidappu is situate.
(4) xxx xxx xxx
(5) where any person holds five acres or more of land, either as
E owner or as tenant, and there are more kudikidappukars than
one in the lands held by him, each of the kudikidappukars
shall be entitled to purchase the extent of land specified in
sub-section (3).
(6) No kudikidappukaran shall be entitled to purchase any land
F which is not in the lawful possession of the person who holds
the land in which the kudikidappu is situate or which is not
within the boundaries of such land."
Section SOB lays down the procedure or purchase by a kudikidap-
G pukaran. Section 103, which provides for revision by High Court, lays down
in sub-section (2) that the High Court may, after giving an opportunity to
the parties to be heard, pass such orders as it deems fit and the orders of
the appellate authority or the Land Board, or the Taluk Land Board as the
case may be, shall, wherever necessary, be modified accordingly. In sub-
r
section (3), suo motu power is vested in the High Court for the purpose
H of satisfying itself that an order made by the Land Tribunal under Section
MAMMUv. HARIMOHAN(MOHAPATRA,J.] 95
26 in cases where the amount of arrears of rent claimed does not exceed A
five hundred rupees was according to law, call for the records and pass
such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. From the aforenoted
statutory provisions, it is manifest that the power of revision vested in the
High Court is wide and it is not limited only to question of law or
jurisdiction. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the revisional power to
disturb findings of fact or law recorded by the Land Tribunal or Land
B
Board or Taluk land Board as the case may be, only in appropriate cases
in which the Court is satisfied that such interference is necessary in the
interest of justice and for proper adjudication of the dispute raised by the
parties. In the case on hand, the High Court, as the impugned order shows,
has taken ncite of exception to the order of the Land Tribunal on the c
ground that it failed to take note of relevant factors like the facts and
circumstances under which the structure was allowed to be constructed;
whether it was free or subject to payment of rent, the existence of similar
structures erected by the other tenant in the building and whether the
structure with respect to which kudikidappu was claimed was really a part D
of the building which was let out to the appellant or it was an independent
or separate structure. The High Court has further observed that the Land
Tribunal decided the case in favour of the appellant taking note of only
one factor, that there is a distance of about 3/4 kole between the two
structures. The High Court has also found that, even though the building
was referred to as a shop building (originally), the appellant herein was E
residing in that while running his motor pump repair business in a portion,
even before constructing the lean - to or chwthu in question. On the basis
of such facts and circumstances appearing from the evidence on record,
the High Court came to the finding that the structure with respect to
which kudikidappu is claimed is not an independent structure; it is only an
F
adjunct or appurtenant to the shop room previously let out to the appellant.
The facts and circumstances noted in the impugned judgment are relevant
and germane for the purpose of determining the question whether the
appellant's claim that he is a kudikidappukaran with respect to the struc-
ture in question and as such entitled to purchase the property. The High
Court cannot be faulted either in fact or in law for having held that the G
appellant is not a kudikidappukaran with respect to the structure in
question.
In conclusion, while vacating the finding of the High Court that no
revision would lie against the order of the Appellate Authority remanding H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 1 S.C.R.
A the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal, we are not satisfied that
the impugned order dismissing the proceeding before the Tribunal in O.A.
No. 50/1984 warrants interference. We make it clear that our decision to
reverse the finding on the maintainability of the revision petition and
overruling the contra view taken by the Kerala High Court, for the reasons
B set forth in this judgment, will have only prospective effect. Any proceeding
under the Act which has been concluded and finally disposed of by the
land Tribunal, High Court or any other competent authority relying on the
decisions of the Kerala High Court on the point will not be re-opened on
the basis of the decision rendered by us. Accordingly the appeal is dis-
missed, but in the cin:umstances of the case, without any order for costs.
c R.C.K. Appeal dismissed.
\
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "kudikidappu"Sign in to search