The petitioner is an appellant in AA No. 96/2003 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Kannur as well as the petitioner in OA No. 21/1997 on the file of Land Tribunal, Kozhikode. The above OA was filed under Section 80B of Land Reforms Act for the purchase of kudikidappu under the said Act. The Land Tribunal passed the order allowing the petitioner to purchase 3 cents of land in Kozhikode Taluk. Against the said proceedings under Section 80B of the Land Reforms Act, the revision petitioner herein filed the above appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority also concurred that findings of the Land Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. The above order is under challenge in this revision petition.
2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the court below went on by relying on the report filed by the revenue inspector. Though the petitioner had filed an application for appointing a commission so as to challenge the findings of the revenue inspector as to the cost of construction of the hut and the rental value, the authorities below rejected the application. Thus the petitioner had no opportunity to controvert the findings of the revenue inspector as regards the cost of construction of the hut and the rental value. The special revenue inspector submitted a report without considering the relevant aspects and without conducting a proper enquiry. It is also contended that the hut in question will not come under the purview of kudikidappu as the construction cost of the house will exceed more than ` 750/- and it would fetch more that ` 5/- as rent at the time of construction. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged for further opportunity to adduce evidence against the findings of the revenue inspector by deputing an advocate commission and an expert, after remitting the case back to the Land Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited 1988 (2) KLT 384 Mariyumma vs. B.Pathumma and submits that the Land Tribunal has the power under Section 101 of the Land Reforms Act to depute a commission without setting aside the report of the authorised officer.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent advanced arguments to justify the concurrent findings of the authorities below. The learned counsel drew my attention to various documents 44 in numbers produced by the petitioner and admitted in evidence. According to the counsel, the authorities below rightly placed reliance on the report filed by the revenue inspector invoking the jurisdiction and power under Section 105 of Land Reforms Act. The learned counsel cited 2011 (1) KHC 248 (DB) Raman Kutty Nair and others Vs. Radhika G. Nair. It is also contended that no purpose will be served by sending another commission at present so as to ascertain the value of construction which was made more than 60 years back, at the time when the cost of construction and the value of materials were very low when comparing with the present value.(15.21)
4. Heard both sides. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the authorities below have erroneously decided or failed to decide the question of law. Going by the order passed by the Land Tribunal, it is the case of the petitioner that his predecessor in interest were residing in the hut from 1942 onwards. According to them, the house in question was an old one and was taken on lease by late Kannanat Baputy, father of the first petitioner, Late Damayanthi and Late Dasan on 16.08.1942 from Khan Sahib Kunhammed Koya fixing the monthly rent of Rs. 7/-. Thereafter, the properties of the land lord was partitioned among the members of the Tharavadu and the house in question and other properties were set apart to the share of P.P. Hassan Koya and thereby the rent was received by him and receipt was issued to the original petitioner. The house pertinent land has been in the possession and enjoyment of Baputy and his family members including the petitioner. In support of their contention, they have produced documents 44 in numbers. Document No. 1 to 10 are tax receipts on various dates from 31.01.1943 to 05.09.1947. In continuation of the same, they have produced the remaining documents upto a period of 13.11.1996.
5. The authorised officer in his report specifically stated the length and width of the hut and he calculated the cost of construction, at the time of construction, after taking the value of each materials separately. Similarly, he has taken labour value for the construction of wood items and maison works separately. It is a matter of common knowledge that during the period of 1940's the value of materials to construct a hut was very low when comparing with the present value. On an analysis of the data given in the revenue inspector's report, I also concur with the findings of the authorities below that the report would inspire confidence and the same is believable. Therefore I cannot find fault with the authorities below for placing reliance on the report prepared by the authorised officer, on which authorities below placed reliance. If the report filed by the authorised officer in exercise of the power under Section 105 of the Land Reforms Act is reliable and sufficient enough to inspire confidence of the authories, there is no need to depute another advocate commissioner for assessing the value.
6. Going by Section 105 of the Land Reforms Act, in my view, there cannot be a substitute for the report of the authorised officer. Even if another advocate commissioner is sent for assessing the value, the same cannot be taken in evidence while determining the right to Kudikidappu under Section 80B of the Land Reforms Act. In 1984 KLT (384) this court held that the report of the revenue inspector forms part of the record and it can be used as evidence without examining him. It is true that as held in Mariyumma's case (supra), the appellate authority, has the power to issue Commission and to take additional evidence in exercise of the power under S.101 and 102(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act read with O.41 R.27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But, the question, in the instance case is, whether any additional evidence is required to decide the right of the applicant, who claims kudikidapu right over the property.
7. Having regard to the report filed by the authorised officer, which is supported by documents 14 in numbers, I find that there was no reason to appoint another advocate commissioner to collect additional evidence. Hence, I find that the authorities below rightly decided the right of the applicant after placing reliance on the report filed by the authorised officer and the documentary evidence admitted in evidence. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities below.
Hence, this revision petition is devoid of merits and dismissed accordingly.
K. HARILAL, JV & STU JUDGE