S. APPUKUTTAN versus THUNDIYIL JANAKI AMMA & ANR.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 13-01-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S. APPUKUITAN 
v. 
THUNDiyIL JANAK! AMMA & ANR. 
JANUARY 13, 1988 
A 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.J 
B 
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1964 as amended by Act 17 of 1972-
Explanation /l-A to clause (25) of Section 2 of-Scope and effect of 
These appeals and Petitions for Special Leave raised a common 
question of law regarding the scope and effect of Explanation 11-A to 
clause (25) of section 2 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, as 
amended by Act 17 of 1972; What fell for consideration was whether by 
reason of Explanation II-A to seetion 2(25) of the Act; a person in 
occupation of a homestead or a hut belonging to another during the 
per_iod stipulated in the Explanation would become a Kudikidappuka-
ran and be entitled to Kudikidappu rights under the Act. 
Allowing Civil Appeal No. 3045 of 1980, allowing C.A. No. 2505 
of 1977 partly and dismissing the Petitions for Special Leave, the Court, 
c 
D 
·.HELD: The. contentions of the· pa~ies in these cases had to be 
examined in the conspectus of the several amendments°made by the 
E 
').-- Legislature to section 2(25) of the Act and the decisions rendered by the 
Kerala High Court. [669CI 
Explanation 11-A has been made a non-obstante provision in 
-~ order to give over-riding effect to the Explanation over any judgment, 
decree or· order of any court, passed against a person who was on 
F 
I 6.S_.68 in occupation of a homestead or hut thereon and who continued 
.to be in such occupation till the lst day of January, 1970. The Legis.la-
ture bas by introducing Explanation 11-A done away with any reference 
to occupation being referable to any permission granted by the owner of 
. the land or the hnt as the case may be. Not only had the Legislature 
eschewed any reference to permissive occupation but had also given a G 
mandate that every one in actual occupation of any land and the dwel-
~ 
ling house thereon between 16.8.68 and l. l.70, irrespective of who built 
· the dwelling place, should be granted recognition as a Kudikidappuka-
ran. By reason of this explicit provision, there was no scope whatever 
restricting the class of person entitled to the benefit of Explanation II-A 
, 
to only those who were able to prove obtainment of initial permission to 
H 
661 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
662 
SUPREME COUR'.f REPORTS 
[1988) 2 S.C.R. 
occupy a homestead or a hut thereon. Explanation II-A equates an 
occupant of a homestead or a hut thereon during the relevant period 
with a Kudikidappukaran as defined under the main clause. Such being 
the case, anyone satisfying the requirements of Explanation II-A would 
automaticaHy be entitled to have the status of a Kudikidappukaran and 
to all the benefits flowing therefrom. In other words, a person falling 
under Explanation II· A has to be statutorily deemed as one permitted to 
occupy a homestead or the hut thereon as envisaged in sub-clauses (a) 
and (b) of clause (25) of.section 2. The only limitation placed by expla-
nation II-A is that a person falling within the terms of the definition 
should satisfy the conditions laid down by the provisd to the Explana-
tion, viz. that if he or his predecyssor had not constructed the dwelling 
house, the house should not costwise exceed Rs. 750 or.rentwise exceed a 
monthly rent of Rs~5 and the occupant should not be in possession of 
land exceeding tl!ree cents in extent in any city or major municipality or 
five cents in any 9ther municipality or ten cents in any panchayat area 
or township either as owner or as a tenant on which he could erect a 
building. Viewed in the proper perspective, Explanation II-A consti-
tutes a second limb of clause (25) of section 2 to give full effect to its 
intendment, viz., entitling a person to Kudikidappu rights.imder section 
2(25) if he proves initial permission to occupy the land and the dwelling 
house without the need of proving continuous possession dllrill1g a pre-
scr.ibed period of time or in thealternative to claim Kudikidappu rights 
-
under Explanation 'II-A by proving continnous occupation during the 
y 
period of time pre5cribed by the Explanation without the necessity of 
proving obtainment of initial permission to occupy the land and the 
dwelling house thereon. Explanation II-A has got operatwe force of its 
own, which may be seen from the fact that clause (25) of section 2 as 
well as sub-clause (b) of the proviso to Explanation II-A lay down 
,.. 
identical conditions which are to be satisfied by an. applicant unde~~ 
the m
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.