The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application for shifting kudikidappu is not maintainable when the order allowing the application for purchase of kudikidappu remains in force and does not stand cancelled by non-payment of purchase price.

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 purchase has been issued under S.80C in respect of the kudikidappu. Instead second proviso to S.77(1) was added by Act 15 of 1976. It reads:

"Provided further that the Land Tribunal shall not entertain any application under this sub-section in respect of a kudikidappu, if an order under sub-s.(3) of S.80B allowing an application for the purchase of that kudikidappu has been passed and such order is in force."

Thus from a reading of the above proviso it is clear that in a case where certificate of purchase has already been issued in respect of the kudikidappu no order to enforce shifting of the kudikidappu could be made. In view of the deletion of the proviso to sub-section (2) it cannot be contended that the failure to deposit the purchase price will disentitle the kudikidappukaran from challenging the application for shifting kudikidappu. The second proviso to S.77(1) envisages that the Land Tribunal shall not entertain any application under the Section in respect of a kudikidappu, if an order under sub-s.(3) of S.80B allowing an application for purchase of that kudikidappu has been passed and such order is in force. It cannot be denied that the order allowing the application for purchase of kudikidappu remains in force. The revision petitioner could not deposit the purchase price in view of the proceedings under S.75(2) of the Act. The Appellate Authority overlooked the second proviso to S.77(1) and erred in holding that the petition is maintainable.

4. As the purchase application was allowed by this Court on 16-8-1978 and as the application to shift kudikidappu was filed by the first respondent subsequently the revision petitioner could not deposit the purchase price. As the threat of shifting kudikidappu was very much in the air, revision petitioner was justified in not depositing the purchase price immediately. Nevertheless the order in O.A. 11280 of 1970 in accordance with the Act is there with all its force. Under S.80C(1) the kudikidappukaran has to deposit the purchase price within six months from the date on which the order has become final or within further six months as allowed by the Land Tribunal. S.80C(6) states that the purchase price payable by the kudikidappukaran shall be a first charge on the land to which the purchase relates and shall be recoverable together with interest as provided under S.801) under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force. S.801) provides for interest on default of payment of purchase price. These provisions would clearly indicate that the scheme of the Act is to realise the purchase price whenever kudikidappukaran defaults payment by having recourse to coercive steps. In this contxt deletion of the proviso to S.77(2) assumes importance. Sub-s.(3) to S.80C was deleted by Act 15 of 19