Hence this appeal by special leave.
The companytesting respondents then filed a revision before the High Court of Kerala under Section 103 of the Act on a question of law that a second application is number maintainable as barred by the principles of companystructive res judicata.
That appellate authority set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for disposal of the second application afresh.
During the pendency of the said application, the appellant got the alternative site gifted to him by its erstwhile owner and filed a second application under Section 75 2 of the Act for shifting the kudikidappu thereto.
By the impugned order a learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the Land Tribunals order by upholding the companytention that the second application was barred by the principles of companystructive res judicata.
The companytesting respondents challenged the said order before the appellate authority but that appeal was dismissed.
The appellant challenged the order of the Land Tribunal before the appellate authority.
After remand, the Land Tribunal found that the kudikidappu is liable to be shifted to the alternative site and as a companyollary, the application field under Section 75 2 of the Act was ordered.
While that application was pending, the appellant realised the futility of the said application because the alternative site did number belong to him then.
T. Thomas, J. The appellant is a landowner and Respondents 1 and 2 enjoyed kudikidappu right under the appellant.
The appellant moved an application before the Land Tribunal companycerned under Section 72 2 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 the Act for short for shifting the kudikidappu to an alternative site.
