# MADHAVI AMMA & ORS v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI & ORS

- **Citation:** [2013] 5 S.C.R. 307
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 2735-2736 of 2005
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/madhavi-amma-ors-v-s-prasannakumari-ors-29086
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

A
B
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963 - ss. 80, BOB, 79A, 102
and 125 - Eviction proceedings under the 1965 Act -
C
Reference u/s.125(3) of the 1963 Act, by Rent Control
Authority calling for decision as to status of appellant(s) as a
tenant or Kudikidappukaran - On Reference, Land Tribunal
returned . a
finding that appel/ant(s)
was not a
Kudikidappukaran but was only a tenant occupying a building o
belonging to the respondent and not a hut or homestead -
Held: The only scope to challenge the conclusion of the Land
Tribunal was by way of an appeal under the provisions of 1965
Act by virtue of the specific stipulations contained in s. 125(6)
of the 1963 Act - In order for a person to claim the status of E
Kudikidappukaran, he has to ensure that the status claimed
is in the first instance accepted by the local authority in
appropriate proceedings uls.BO of the 1963 Act and more
importantly in proof for such acceptance his name is entered
as Kudikidappukaran in the register prepared and maintained
F
for that purpose by the local authority - Approach made by
the appellant(s) by invoking s.BOB of the 1963 Act in order to
assert his right as Kudikidappukaran even without getting his
status ascertained in appropriate proceedings u/s. BO of the
1963 Act was wholly invalid and rightly rejected by the original
authority - Appellate Authority failed to understand the scope,
G
power and jurisdiction of Appellate power u/s.102 of the 1963
Act as against the order passed uls. BOB of the 1963 Act -
Order of Appellate Authority was, wholly without any jurisdiction
307
H
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
A and rightly set aside by the High Court - Kera/a Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963 - s.125 - Status of
Kudikidappukaran - Determination - Bar of jurisdiction of Civil
8
Court/Rent Control Court - Held: Such question can be
exclusively decided only by the Land Tribunal - However,
after such decision is rendered pursuant to a reference made
to it and the ultimate decision of the Civil Court/Rent Control
Court is taken up by way of appeal, the Appellate Court!
appellate authority of a Civil Court or Rent Control Court while
C examining the merits of the decision of the concerned Civil
Court or the original authority on the question of eviction can
also examine the correctness of the decision rendered by the
Land Tribunal as regards the status as a Kudikidappukaran.
D
The respondents landlord filed RCP No. 140/85 for
eviction of the tenant, sub-tenant and other occupants
under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
1965. When that eviction petition was pending, one of the
tenants, who was predecessor of the appellant (s) herein,
E filed a petition under Section 125 (3) of the Kerala Land
Reforms
Act,
1963
claiming
rights
as
a
Kudikidappukaran. The Rent Controller referred the issue
as to whether such a claim made by the tenant was
admissible, to the Land Tribunal. The tenant also filed an
F application under Section 80B of the 1963 Act for
purchase of Kudikidappu under his occupation of the
lands before the Land Tribunal. By orders dated
19.2.1991, the Land Tribunal returned a finding in the
Reference made by the Rent Control Authority to the
G effect that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant (s)
did not possess any Kudikidappu rights. In the
application filed under Section 80B of the Act also such
a claim came to the rejected. Having regard to the
provisions contained in Section 125 (5) of the 1963 Act,
the Rent Control proceedings in RCP 140/85 was
H·
MADKAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 309
determined holding that the tenant's right as a A
Kudikidappukaran was not maintainable and thereafter
the eviction petition was also ordered on merits in favour
of the respondent-landlord herein.
On the side of the appellant (s), a separate appeal was
B
preferred in AA 37/91 as against the rejection of the
application under section 808 of the 1963 Act which
came to be allowed by the Ap

## Text

_Characters 0–39,017 of 63,233. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39017 for what follows._

[2013] 5 S.C.R. 307
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS.
v.
S. PRASANNAKUMARI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2735-2736 of 2005)
MARCH 22,. 2013
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ,]
A
B
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963 - ss. 80, BOB, 79A, 102
and 125 - Eviction proceedings under the 1965 Act -
C
Reference u/s.125(3) of the 1963 Act, by Rent Control
Authority calling for decision as to status of appellant(s) as a
tenant or Kudikidappukaran - On Reference, Land Tribunal
returned . a
finding that appel/ant(s)
was not a
Kudikidappukaran but was only a tenant occupying a building o
belonging to the respondent and not a hut or homestead -
Held: The only scope to challenge the conclusion of the Land
Tribunal was by way of an appeal under the provisions of 1965
Act by virtue of the specific stipulations contained in s. 125(6)
of the 1963 Act - In order for a person to claim the status of E
Kudikidappukaran, he has to ensure that the status claimed
is in the first instance accepted by the local authority in
appropriate proceedings uls.BO of the 1963 Act and more
importantly in proof for such acceptance his name is entered
as Kudikidappukaran in the register prepared and maintained
F
for that purpose by the local authority - Approach made by
the appellant(s) by invoking s.BOB of the 1963 Act in order to
assert his right as Kudikidappukaran even without getting his
status ascertained in appropriate proceedings u/s. BO of the
1963 Act was wholly invalid and rightly rejected by the original
authority - Appellate Authority failed to understand the scope,
G
power and jurisdiction of Appellate power u/s.102 of the 1963
Act as against the order passed uls. BOB of the 1963 Act -
Order of Appellate Authority was, wholly without any jurisdiction
307
H
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
A and rightly set aside by the High Court - Kera/a Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963 - s.125 - Status of
Kudikidappukaran - Determination - Bar of jurisdiction of Civil
8
Court/Rent Control Court - Held: Such question can be
exclusively decided only by the Land Tribunal - However,
after such decision is rendered pursuant to a reference made
to it and the ultimate decision of the Civil Court/Rent Control
Court is taken up by way of appeal, the Appellate Court!
appellate authority of a Civil Court or Rent Control Court while
C examining the merits of the decision of the concerned Civil
Court or the original authority on the question of eviction can
also examine the correctness of the decision rendered by the
Land Tribunal as regards the status as a Kudikidappukaran.
D
The respondents landlord filed RCP No. 140/85 for
eviction of the tenant, sub-tenant and other occupants
under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
1965. When that eviction petition was pending, one of the
tenants, who was predecessor of the appellant (s) herein,
E filed a petition under Section 125 (3) of the Kerala Land
Reforms
Act,
1963
claiming
rights
as
a
Kudikidappukaran. The Rent Controller referred the issue
as to whether such a claim made by the tenant was
admissible, to the Land Tribunal. The tenant also filed an
F application under Section 80B of the 1963 Act for
purchase of Kudikidappu under his occupation of the
lands before the Land Tribunal. By orders dated
19.2.1991, the Land Tribunal returned a finding in the
Reference made by the Rent Control Authority to the
G effect that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant (s)
did not possess any Kudikidappu rights. In the
application filed under Section 80B of the Act also such
a claim came to the rejected. Having regard to the
provisions contained in Section 125 (5) of the 1963 Act,
the Rent Control proceedings in RCP 140/85 was
H·
MADKAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 309
determined holding that the tenant's right as a A
Kudikidappukaran was not maintainable and thereafter
the eviction petition was also ordered on merits in favour
of the respondent-landlord herein.
On the side of the appellant (s), a separate appeal was
B
preferred in AA 37/91 as against the rejection of the
application under section 808 of the 1963 Act which
came to be allowed by the Appellate Authority by its order
dated 13.11.1995. As against the order of the Rent Control
Authority in RCP No.140/85 dated 2.7.1991 on behalf of C
the appellant(s), an appeal was also preferred in RCA
No.133/1991 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
The said appeal was dismissed by order dated
28.10.1995. In the above stated background, the High
Court passed the impugned order confirming the order
of eviction as against the appellant (s) and also setting D
aside the order of the appellate authority dated 13.11.95
in AA 37of1991 passed under the provisions of 1963 Act.
In the instant appeals, the appellant(s) contended
that irrespective of the decision of the Land Tribunal in E
its order passed in the Reference Case being RC No.16/
89 dated 19.2.1991 which was acknowledged, approved
and accepted by the Rent Control Authority in its ultimate
order of eviction dated 02. 7 .1991, the order which came
to be passed by the appellate authority under the 1963
F
Act in AA 37 of 1991 would prevail which has ultimate!~·
concluded
that
the
appellants'
right
as
Kudikiddappukaran was well-founded.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms
Act, 1963 creates a bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court to
settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine
any matter which is by or under the 1963 Act required to
G
be settled, decidE!d or dealt with or to be determined by H
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
A the Land Tribunal or the Appellate Authority or the Land
Board or the Taluk Land Board or the Government or an
officer of the Government. Further the proviso to Section
(1) to Section 125 excludes such a bar of civil Court
jurisdiction in respect of proceedings pending in any
B Court at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms
Amendment Act, 1969. Even while creating such a bar of
jurisdiction of civil Courts, the law makers wanted to
ensure that no person is allowed to abuse or misuse the
benefits conferred under 1963 Act while claiming rights
c as a Kudikidappukaran and with that laudable object
engraved sub-Section (3) in Section 125 itself by which
any Civil Court or authority before whom any other
proceedings regarding rights of. a tenant or of a
Kudikidappukaran arise for consideration, enjoins upon
.D such civil Court or other authority to stay the proceedings
temporarily and also simultaneously make a reference to
the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in
which the land or part thereof is situate along with the
relevant records for the decision of the question as to
whether a person is a tenant or a Kudikidappukaran.
E While under Section 125(3), having regard to the bar of
jurisdiction of Civil Court/Rent Control Court to decide
the question about the status of a Kudikidappukaran or
a tenant which can be exclusively decided only by the
land Tribunal, after such a decision is rendered pursuant
F to a reference made to it and the ultimate decision of the
Civil Court/Rent Control Court is taken up by way of an
appeal to the Appellate Court/appellate authority of a Civil
Court or Rent Control Court while examining the merits
of the decision of the concerned Civil Court or the
G original authority on the question of eviction can also
examine the correctness of the decision rendered by the
Land
Tribunal
as
regards
the
status
as
a
Kudikidappukaran. [Para 14] [332-B-F; 333-B-D]
H
2. Serious discrepancy was' explicit in the order of
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI
311
the Appellate Authority dated 13.11.1995 in AA 37/91. In
A
the first place, as rightly held by the High Court when a
Reference was made under Section 125 (3) of the 1963
Act by the Rent Control Authority calling for a decision
as to the status of the appellant(s) as a tenant or
Kudikidappukaran for the purpose of deciding the
B
eviction proceedings, and in that Reference the Land
Tribunal returned a finding that the appellant(s) was not
a Kudikidappukaran but was only a tenant occupying_ a
building belonging to the respondent and not a hut or
homestead, thereafter the only scope to challenge the c
said conclusion of the Land Tribunal was only by way of
an appeal under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 by virtue of the
specific stipulations contained in Section 125(6) of the
1963 Act. [Para 19] [337-C-F]
o
3. Consequently, when a decision was reached by
the Land Tribunal in a Reference made to it under Section
125 (3) of the 1963 Act, having regard to the scheme of
the Act as from the definition of Kudikidappukaran under
Section 2(25), the benefits that would accrue to a
E
Kudikidappukaran as provided under Section 79A, the
procedure prescribed under Section 80 by which a
person claiming the rights of Kudikidappukaran has to
ensure
the
recognition
of
such
status
as
Kudikidappukaran in a proceeding before the concerned
F
local authority and get his name registered in the
prescribed register to be prepared by the local authority
and to be maintained for that purpose, one fails to see
how
any
person
claiming
such
status
as
Kudikidappukaran can seek for such status to be G
recognized by resorting to any other proceedings under
the other provisions of the 1963 Act. In order for a person
to claim the status of Kudikidappukaran for the purpose
of availing the benefits available as a Kudikidappukaran
as spelt out under Section 79A of the 1963 Act, he has
H
~
--
.
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
A to ensure that the status claimed by him as
Kudikidappukaran is in the first instance accepted by the
local authority in appropriate proceedings under Section
80 of the Act and more importantly in proof for such
acceptance his name is entered as Kudikidappukaran in
B the register prepared and maintained for that purpose by
the local authority. If any such person is not able to get
such recognition in the first instance before the local
authority, the statute prescribes a remedy of appeal
under Section 80(5) before appropriate appellate
c authority. Only after establishing such a right in the
prescribed manner as provided under Section 80 of the
Act, there would be any scope for anyone to claim validly
that he is entitled for all the benefits that would flow from
his status as a Kudikidappukaran. In other words, it can
0 be validly stated that .the claim of a status of a
Kudikidappukaran can be determined only under S~ction
80 of the Act. [Para 20) [337-G-H; 338-A-F]
4. In contradistinction to Section 80, what is provided
under Sections 80A or 808 were the consequential
E benefits such as the right to purchase the Kudikidappu
and the procedure to be followed for effecting the
purchase by approaching the concerned authorities and
thereby ascertain his ownership rights after such
purpose. By no stretch of imagination, the right to
F purchase provided under Section 80A and the procedure
prescribed for purchase ot such right under Section 808
can be invoked, by a person whose status as
Kudikidappukaran was yet to be ascertained earlier. The
approach made by the appellant(s) by invoking Section
G 808 of the Act in order to assert his right as
Kudikidappukaran even without getting his status
ascertained in the appropriate proceedings under Section
80 of the Act was wholly invalid and was rightly rejected
by the original authority in its order dated 19.2.1991 in OA
H 78/88. The Appellate Authority that decided the appeal as
' ..
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 313
against the said order in AA 37/91 failed to understand
A
the scope, power and jurisdiction of Appellate power
under Section 102 of the Act as against the order passed
under Section SOB of the 1963 Act which resulted in the
passing of the order dated 13.11.1995 in AA 37/91. The
order of the Appellate Authority (LR) Attingal, dated
B
13.11.1995 in AA 37/91 was, wholly without any
jurisdiction and was rightly set aside by the High Court.
[Paras 21, 22] [338-G-H; 339-A-D, E]
5. The only other aspect to be examined is the
correctness of the order passed by the Rent Control
C
Authority in RCP No.140/85 dated 2.7.1991 on the merits
of ground of eviction, namely, the alleged default in
payment of rent, necessity for demolition and reconstruction and the claim for own-occupation. In those
aspects, as the conclusion was arrived at by the Rent D
Control Court based on a detailed consideration of the
merits which are mainly based on facts and in the
absence of any legal error in the said conclusion arrived
at by the Rent Control Authority as well as the Rent
Control Appellate Authority in the decision dated
E
28.10.1995 passed in RCA No.133/91, there is no scope
to find fault with the ultimate decision of the High Court
in dismissing the revision preferred by the appellant(s).
The decision of the High Court in allowing the revision
preferred by the respondent as against the order of the
F
appellate authority (LR) dated 13.11.1995 in AA 37/91 was
also justified. [Para 23] [339-F-H; 340-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
2735-2736 of 2005.
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.12.2002 of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRP No. 833 and 1411 of
1996.
G
Romy Chacko, Varun Mudgal for the Appellants.
H
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
A
S. Balakrishnan, Bina Madhavan, Praseena E. Joseph, P.
Narasimhan, Subramonium Prasad, S.N. Jha for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. These
appeals are directed against the common judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Kera la at Ernakulam dated
18.12.2002 passed in CRP No.1411/1996 (C) and CRP
No.833/1996(H). CRP No.1411/1996 (C) was preferred by one
C Appukuttan Nair along with the appellant (s) herein challenging
the decision of the Rent Control Appellate Authority,
Thiruvananthapuram dated 28.10.1995 in RCA No.133/1991
by which the eviction ordered by the Rent Control Court in its
order dated 02.7.1991 in RCP No.140/1985 was confirmed.
D CRP. No.833 of 1996 (H) was preferred by the respondents
herein challenging the order of the Appellate Authority (LR),
Attingal in AA No.37/91 dated 13.11.1995 by which the order
of the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram dated 19.02.1991 in
OA No.78/1988 filed by the predecessor of the appellant (s),
E namely, Appukkuttan Nair under Section 80B of the Kerala
Land Reforms Act for the purchase of his Kudikidappu right in
respect of survey No.1536/A of Vanchiyoor Village,
Thiruvananthapuram Taluk was reversed.
2. By the common order of the Division Bench, the eviction
F ordered by the Authorities under the Kerala Rent Control Act,
1963 and Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965
was confirmed and the order of the appellate authority dated
13.11.1995 in AA 37/1991 was set aside.
G
3. To trace the brief facts, the respondents landlord filed
RCP No. 140/85 for eviction of the tenant, sub-tenant and other
occupants under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act, 1965 hereinafter called 'the 1965 Act'.
When that eviction petition was pending, at the instance of one
H of the tenants, who was predecessor of the appellant (s) herein
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 315
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
filed a petition under Section 125 (3) of the Kerala Land
A
Reforms Act, 1963 hereinafter called 'the 1963 Act' by which
the predecessor of the appellant (s) claimed rights as a
Kudikidappukaran. The learned Rent Controller referred the
issue as to whether such a claim made by the tenant was
admissible, to the Land Tribunal, having jurisdiction over the
B
area in which the land situated together with the relevant
records for the decision on that question.
4. Be that as it may, the tenant also filed an application
under Section 80B of the 1963 Act for purchase of Kudikidappu
under his occupation of the lands before the Land Tribunal. By
C
independent orders dated 19.2.1991, the Land Tribunal returned
a finding in the Reference made by the learned Rent Control
Authority to the effect that the predecessor-in-interest of the
appellant (s) did not possess any Kudikidappu rights. In the
application filed under Section 80B of the Act also such a claim
D
came to the rejected. Having regard to the provisions contained
in Section 125 (5) of the 1963 Act, the Rent Control
proceedings in RCP 140/85 was determined holding that the
tenant's right as a Kudikidappukaran was not maintainable and
thereafter the eviction petition was also ordered on merits in
E
favour of the respondent-landlord herein.
5. On the side of the appellant (s), a separate appeal was
preferred in AA 37/91 as against the rejection of the application
under section 80B of the 1963 Act which came to be allowed
by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 13.11.1995. As
_against the order of the Rent Control Authority in RCP No.140/
F
85 dated 2.7.1991 on behalf of the appellant(s), an appeal was
also preferred in RCA No.133/1991 before the Rent Control
Appellate Authority. The said appeal was dismissed by order
G
dated 28.10.1995.
6. It is in the above stated background, the Division Bench
of the High Court passed the impugned order confirming the
order of eviction as against the appellant (s) and also setting
. aside the order of the appellate authority dated 13.11.95 in AA
H
3~6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
A 37 of 1991 passed under the provisions of 1963 Act.
7. We .heard Mr. Romy Chacko, Advocate for the
appellant(s) and Sri Balakrishnan, learned senior counsel for
the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant(s)
8 vehemently contended that irrespective of the decision of the
Land Tribunal in its order passed in the Reference Case being
RC No.16/89 dated 19.2.1991 which was acknowledged,
approved and accepted by the learned Rent Control Authority
in its ultimate order of eviction dated 02.7.1991, the order which
came to be passed by the appeliate authority under the 1963
C Act in AA 37 of 1991 would prevail which has ultimately
concluded that the appellants' right as Kudikiddappukaran was
well-founded. In other words, according to learned counsel as
the claim of the appellant(s) as Kudikiddapkaran under the
provision of 1963 Act was substantial in nature which has been
D examined and held in their favour by the concerned authority
under the provision of the 1963 Act, the same should prevail
over the rent control proceedings which was contrary to the
decision passed under the 1963 Act.
E
8. As against the above submission, Sri Balakrishnan,
learned senior counsel for the respondent-landlord contended
that the claim of the appellant(s) as the Kudikidappukaran
having been rejected by the authority constituted under the 1963
Act, in a Reference made to it which issue was also subject
F matter of consideration in the appeal preferred against the
order of the Rent Control Authority, namely, before the Rent
Control Appellate Authority as provided under Section 125(6)
of the Act, the said decision could alone determine the rights
of the appellant(s) even as regards the status as
G Kudikidappukaran and any contrary finding made in an
application under Section 808 of the 1963 Act cannot prevail
over the proceedings under Section 125 of the 1963 Act.
9. The crucial question which arises for consideration in
this appeal is as to what is the scheme of the Act in regard to
H the decision as to the status of a person as Kudikidappukaran,
..
.. ,
...
_.,,
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 317
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
his rights and entitlements on the one hand and the effect of A
the decision of the Civil Court or any other authority in deciding
an issue relating to the rights of a landlord as against a tenant
in which any question is raised by the tenant claiming rights as
a Kudikidappukaran.
10. In order to decide the above question some of the 8
relevant provisions of the 1963 Act require to be noted, namely,
Section 2 (25) the definition of 'Kudikidappukaran', Section 79A
.[
which prescribes the customary and other rights of
Kudikidappukaran, Section 80 which prescribes the procedure c
for the registration of a person as Kudikidappukaran, Sections
80A and 808 which prescribe the right of Kudikidappukaran,
to purchase his Kudikidappu rights and the procedure to be
followed for effecting such purchase. Under Section 102 of the
Act the right of appeal against an order passed under Section
D
808 of the 1963 Act is provided. Provision for revision before
the High Court is provided under Section 103 of the Act as
against any Appellate Authority's decision. There is an in built
provision under Section 125 for making a Reference to a Land
Tribunal to decide the question about the status of a person as
Kudikidappukaran and further appeal remedy against such a E
decision. The said provisions are as under:
"2.(25) "Kudikidappukaran" means a person who has
neither a homestead nor any land exceeding in extent
three cents in any city or major municipality or five cents in
F
any other municipality or ten cents in any panchayat area
or township, in possession either 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 rent by a person in lawful possession of any land to G
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 any land to occupy, with or without an
H
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
...
A
obligation to pay rent, a hut belonging to such person and
situate in the said land; and "Kudikidappu" means the land
and the homestead or the hut so permitted to be erected
or occupied together with the easements attached thereto:
B
[xxxx]
Explanation I. - In calculating the total extent of the land
of a Kudikidappukaran for the purposes of this clause,
three cents in a city or major municipality, shall be deemed
to be equivalent to five cents in any other municipality, and
c
three cents in a city or major municipality or five cents in
any other municipality shall be deemed to be equivalent to
ten cents in a panchayat area or township.
Explanation II. - For the purposes of this clause.
D
(a) "huf' means any dwelling house constructed by a person
other than the person permitted to occupy it-
(i) at a cost, at the time of construction, not exceeding
seven hundred and fifty rupees; or
E
(ii) which could have at the time of construction, yielded a
monthly rent not exceeding five rupees,
and includes any such dwelling house reconstructed by the
F
Kudikidappukaran in accordance with the provisions of
section 79; and
(b) "homestead" means, unless the context otherwise
requires, any dwelling house erected by the person
permitted to have the use and occupation of any land for
G
the purpose of such erection, and includes any such
dwelling house reconstructed by the Kudikidappukaran in
accordance with the provisions of section 79.
[Explanation llA. - Notwithstanding any judgement, decree
H
or order of any court, a person, who, on the 16th day of
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 319
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
August, 1968, was in occupation of any land and the A
_,.
dwelling house thereon (whether constructed by him or by
any of his predecessors-in-interest or belonging to any
other person) and continued to be in such occupation till
the 1st day of January, 1970, shall be deemed to be a
Kudikidappukaran:
B
Provided that no such person shall be deemed to be a
Kudikidappukaranl,
(a) in cases where the dwelling house has not been
constructed by such person or by any of his predecessors- c
in-interest, if-
(i) such dwelling house was constructed at a cost, at the
time of construction, exceeding seven hundred and fifty
rupees; or
D
(ii) such dwelling house could have, at the time ,of
construction, yielded a monthly rent exceeding five rupees;
or
(b) if he has a building or is in possession of any land
E
exceeding in extent three cents in any city or major
municipality or five cents in any other municipality or ten
cents in any panchayat area or township, either as owner
or as tenant, on which he could erect a building];
Explanation Ill. - Where any Kudikidappukaran secures
F
any mortgage with possession of the land in which the
Kudikidappu is situate, his Kudikidappu right shall revive
on the redemption of the mortgage, provided that he has
at the time of redemption no other homestead or any land
G
exceeding three cents in any city or major municipality or
five cents in any other municipality or ten cents in any
panchayat area or township, in possession either as owner
or as tenant, on which he could erect a homestead.
· Explanation IV. - Where a mortgagee with possession
H
320
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
..
A
erects for his residence a homestead, or resides in a hut
already in existence, on the land to which the mortgage
relates, he shall, notwithstanding the redemption of the
mortgage, be deemed to be a Kudikidappukaran in
respect of such homestead or hut, provided that at the time
B
of the redemption-
(a) he has no other Kudikidappu or residential building
belonging to him, or any land exceeding three cents in any
city or major municipality or five cents in any other
c
municipality or ten cents in any panchayat area or
township, in possession either as owner or as tenant, on
which he could erect a homestead; and
(b) his annual income does not exceed two thousand
rupees.
D
Explanation V. - Where a Kudikidappukaran transfers his
right in the Kudikidappu to another person, such person
shall be deemed to be a Kudikidappukaran, ifE
(a) he has no other homestead or any land in possession,
either as owner or as tenant, on which he could erect a
homestead; and
(b) his annual income does not exceed two thousand
rupees,
F
Explanation VI. - For the purposes of this clause, a
person occupying any hut belonging to the owner of a
plantation and situate in the plantation shall not be deemed
to be a Kudikidappukaran if such person was permitted
G
to occupy that hut in connection with his employment in the
plantation, unless
(a) he was, immediately before the commencement of this
Act, entitled to the rights of a Kudikidappukaran or the
holder of a protected ulkudi or Kudikidappu under any law
H
then in force; or
o:
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 321
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
(b) he would have been entitled to the rights of a A
Kudikidappukaran if the area in which that hut is situate
had not been converted into a plantation subsequent to his
occupation of that hut.
[Explanation VII. - For the removal of doubts it is hereby 8
declared that a person occupying a homestead or hut
situate on a land held or owned by the Government of
Kerala or the Government of any other State in India or the
Government of India shall not be deemed to be a
Kudikidappukaran];
c
[79A.
Customary
and
other.
rights
of
Kudikidappukaran. - (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in any law, or in any contract, or in any judgment,
decree or order of court, the Kudikidappukaran shall be
entitled to all rights accrued to him by custom, usage or D
agreement and which he was enjoying immediately before
the commencement of this Act.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, or in any
judgment, decree or order of court, but without prejudice
E
to any rights to which a Kudikidappukaran may be entitled
under any other law for the time being in force or under
any custom, usage or contract a Kudikidappukaran shall
in respect of his Kudikidappu have all the rights and
privileges conferred on the owner of a land under the Indian
Easements Act, 1882, as if the Kudikidappukaran were
F
the owner of his Kudikidappu from the date on which the
hut or homestead, as the case may be, was occupied or
erected.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, or in any G
judgment, decree or order of court, or in any contract it shall
not be necessary to obtain the consent of the owner or
occupier or both of the land in which a Kudikidappu is
situate, to lay down or place any electric supply line or other
work on, over or under such land for the purpose of,supply H
322
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
of electrical energy to the Kudikidappu for domestic
consumption and use.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, or in any
judgment, decree or order of court, or in any contract, it
shall not be necessary to obtain the consent of the owner
or occupier or both of the land in which a kudikidappu is
situate to lay down any pipe or to carry out any other work
on, over or under such land for the purpose of supply of
water to the Kudikidappu for domestic consumption and
use.
Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, enjoyment
of any benefit or concession for a continuous period of
three years immediately preceding the commencement of
this Act shall be deemed to be enjoyment of a right
accrued to the Kudikidappukaran by custom, usage or
agreement.]
80. Register of Kudikidappukars. - (1) The Government
shall cause a register of Kudikidappukars [within the limits
of each local authority to be prepared and maintained.]
(2) The register shall show-
(a) the description of land in which the Kudikidappu is
situate;
(b) the location of the Kudikidappu and its extent;
(c) the name of the landowner and of the person in
possession of the land in which the Kudikidappu is situate;
G
(d) the name and address of the Kudikidappukaran; [xxxx]
[(dd) the rights referred to in section 79A; and
(e) such other particulars as may be prescribed.
H
[3) Subject to such rules as may be made by the
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 323
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
Covernment in this behalf, the local authority shill prepare A
a register of Kudikidappukars within its jurisdiction.
(4) The register shall be maintained by the local authority
in such manner as may be prescribed.
(5) Any person aggrieved by the registration of a
B
Kudikidappukaran under sub-section (3) or the refusal to
register a person claiming to be a Kudikidappukaran may,
within ninety days from the date of registration or refusal,
as the case may be, appeal-
(a) to the Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction,
where the decision appealed against is that of a municipal
corporation or a municipal council;
(b) to the Tahsildar having jurisdiction, in other cases.
(6) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (5), the
Revenue Divisional Officer or the Tahsildar, as the case
may be, may call for the record of any proceeding which
c
D
has been taken by the local authority under this section and
may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made
E
and may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit:
.
Provided that no order prejudicial to any person shall be
passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard.
(7) For the purposes of this section, "local authority" shall
F
not include a cantonment board.]
[BOA. Right of Kudikidappukaran to purchase his
Kudikidappu. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, a G
Kudikidappukaran shall, subject to the provisions of this
section, have the right to purchase the Kudikidappu
occupied by hirn and lands adjoining thereto.
(2) xxx xxx
H
324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
A
(3) The extent of land which the Kudikidappukaran is
entitled to purchase under this section shall be three cents
in city or major municipality or five cents in any other
municipality or ten cents in a panchayat area Of township:
xxxxxx
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
(4) xxx xxx
(5) xxx xxx
(6) xxx xxx
(7) xxx xxx
(8) xxx xxx
(9) xxx xxx
(10) xxx xxx
(11) xxx xxx
(12) xxx xxx
808. Procedure for purchase by Kudikidappukaran.
- (1) A Kudikidappukaran entitled under section 80A to
purchase the Kudikidappu occupied by him and lands
adjoining thereto may apply to the Land Tribunal for such
purchase.
(2) An application under sub-section (1) shall be in such
form and shall contain such particulars as may be
prescribed.
(3) The Land Tribunal shall, after giving notice to the
Kudikidappukars in the land in which the Kudikidappu is
situate and other persons interested in the land and after
such enquiry as may be prescribed, pass such orders on
the application as it thinks fit:,
Provided that where an application under sub-section (1)
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 325
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)
of section 77 in respect of the Kudikidappu is pending, the
A
Land Tribunal shall not pass any order under this subsection before the disposal of that application.
(4) An order under sub-section (3) allowing an application
shall specify.-
B
(i) the extent of land which the Kudikidappukaran is entitled
to purchase;
(ii) the purchase price payable in respect of the land
allowed to be purchased t>y the Kudikidappukaran;
C
(iii) the amounts due to the person in possession of the
land in which the Kudikidappu is situate and other persons
interested in the land;
(iv) the value of encumbrances subsisting or claims for
D
maintenance or alimony charged on the land allowed to be
purchased by the Kudikidappukaran;
(v) the amount payable to the holder of the encumbrance
or the person entitled to the maintenance or alimony and
E
the order of priority in which such amount is payable;
(vi) such other particulars as may be prescribed .
. (5) If the person in possessicn of the land in which
Kudikidappu is situate or the landowner or the
F
intermediary, if any, of the land is liable to pay any amount
to the Kudikidappukaran towards the price of the
homestead or the cost of shifting the Kudikidappu, the
Land Tribunal shall in passing orders on the application for
purchase set off such amount against the purchase price
G
payable to such person.
· (6) Where the right, title and interest of the person in
possession of the land in which the Kudikidappu is situate
or any other person interested in the land form part of the
H
security for any encumbrance or charge for maintenance
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
326
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
or alimony, the Land Tribunal shall, for the purpose of
· determining the value of the encumbrance or the charge
for the maintenance or alimony relating to the portion in
respect of which purchase is allowed, apportion the entire
encumbrance or charge for the maintenance or alimony
between the land in which the Kudikidappu is situate and
the portion allowed to be purchased in proportion to the
values of the two portions.
(7) Where the person in possession of the land in which
the Kudikidappu is situate is a tenant, the purchase price
payable in respect of the land to be purchased shall be
apportioned among. the landowner, the intermediaries, if
any, and the tenant in possession of the land in proportion
to the profits derivable by them from the holding.
Explanation. - "Profits derivable from the land" shall be
deemed to be equal to,-
(i) in the case of a landowner, the rent which he was entitled
to get from the tenant holding immediately under him;
(ii) in the case of an intermediary, the difference between
the rent which he was entitled to get from his tenant and
the rent for which he was liable to his landlord; and
(iii) in the case of the tenant in possession, the difference
between the net income and the rent payable by him; and
the rent payable by such tenant and the intermediary for
the purposes of this Explanation shall be as calculated
under the provisions of this Act.
102 - Appeal to appellate authority. - (1) The
Government or any person aggrieved by any order of the
Land Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 12, subsection (3) of section 13A, section 22, section 23, subsection (2) of section 26 (where the amount of arrears of
rent claimed exceeds five hundred rupees), section 31,
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 327.
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
section 47, sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of section 48,
A
sub-section (3) of section 49, sub~section (6) of section 52,
section 57, sub-section (5) of section 66, section 72F,
section 73, sub-section (2) of section 77, se~tion 80B, subsection {4) of section 90, section 106 or section 106A may
appeal against such order within such time as may be
B
prescribed to the appellate authority.
(2) ............... .
(3) ............... .
(4) ............... .
103 - Revision by High Court (1) Any person aggrieved.
byc
(i) any final order passed in an appeal against the order D
of the Land Tribunal or;
(ii) xxx xxx
(iii) xxx xxx
may, within such time as may be prescribed, prefer a
petition to the High Court against the order on the ground
that the [appellate 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.
(1A) .............. .
(1B) ............. ..
E
F
(2) The High Court may, after giving an opportunity to the
G
parties to be heard, pass such orders as it deems fit and
the orders of the appellate authority or the Land Board, 1 or
the Taluk Land Board as the case may be, shall, wherever
necessary, be modified accordingly.
H
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
A
(3) xxxxxx
B
c
D
E
F
G
(4) The power of the High Court under this section may
be exercised by a Bench consisting of a Single Judge of
the High Court.
125 - Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts. - (1) No Civil
Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with
any question or to determine any matter which is by or
under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with
or to be determined by the Land Tribunal or the appellate
authority or the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board or
the Government or an officer of the Government:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall
apply to proceedings pending in any court at the
commencement of the Kerala land Reforms Amendment
Act, 1969.
(2) No order of the Land Tribunal or the appellate authority
or the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board or the
Government or an officer of the Government made under
this Act shall be questioned in any civil court, except as
provided in this Act.
(3) If in any suit or other proceedings any question
regarding rights of a tenant or of a Kudikidappukaran
(including a question as to whether a person is a tenant
or a Kudikidappukaran) arises, the civil court shall stay the
suit or other proceeding and refer such question to the
Land Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the
land or part thereof is situate together with the relevant
records for the decision of that question only.
(4) The Land Tribunal shall decide the question referred
to it under subsection (3) and return the records together
with its decision to the civil court.
H
(5) The civil court shall then proceed to decide the suit or
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S.