First respondent- land lord filed O.A.525 of 1979 for shifting kudikidappu. The application was dismissed by the Land Tribunal whereas in L.R.A.S.218 of 1981 the Appellate Authority (Land reforms) allowed it.

2. Main contention of the revision petitioner is that the Original Application is not maintainable as her application under S.80B (O.A.11280 of 1970) stands allowed. O.A. 11280 of 1970 filed by the revision petitioner for purchase of kudikidappu was allowed by the Land Tribunal and it has been confirmed by this Court. Counsel for the first respondent submitted that though O.A.11280 of 1970 stood allowed the revision petitioner did not deposit the purchase price and hence nothing further could be done in the matter and so it can never be held that the application under S.75(2) is not maintainable.

3. The short question to be considered is whether the application for shifting kudikidappu is maintainable in a case where the application for purchase of kudikidappu has already been allowed. The proviso to sub-s.(2) of S.77 was omitted by Act 15 of 1976. This proviso states that no order allowing shifting of kudikidappu shall be passed in any case where a certificate of pu