1998 INSC 0443
                                              William George Haggins

                                                           Vs

                                            State of Kerala and Another

                                          Civil Appeal No. 696 of 1987

                            (CJI M. M. Punchhi, G. T. Nanavati, K. T. Thomas JJ)

                                                      06.05.1998

                                                        ORDER

1. This is an appeal by a person, who claimed the right of a hutmentdweller ("kudikidappukaran") as
per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964. The appellant made an application to
purchase the right, title and interest of the landowner over the landed area which is appurtenant to
the building which was in occupation of him. The landowner resisted the application mainly on the
premise that this building is part of another building and as between them there is only one common
wall. Though the Land Tribunal allowed the application of the appellant, he was non-suited by the
Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and the High Court in revision did not interfere.

2. The question whether the building in respect of which the claim is made is a separate entity from
the adjoining is a question of fact. Shri E. M. S. Anam, learned counsel for the appellant, contended
that the application made by the occupant of the other part of the building for purchase of the right,
title and interest of the landowner was granted and a certificate of purchase was also issued. This
fact he tried to project from the report of the Revenue Inspector. If that is a fact, then it cannot
possibly be contended that the building in respect of which the present appellant claims right of
"kudikidappukaran" is part of the other building.

3. It appears to us that the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal has not adverted to the said aspect of
the matter when it concluded that the claim was made in respect of a building which is only a part of
the main structure. We think that the Land Reforms Appellate shall arrive at a decision afresh on
that crucial factual position.

4. We, therefore, upset the impugned of the High Court as well as the judgment of the Appellate
Tribunal and remand the case back to the Appellate Tribunal for disposal of the afresh in the light of
the observations made above.