The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility for claiming the right to purchase Kudikidappu under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, should be determined with reference to the state of things prevailing on the date of the amending Act and the date of making the application before the Land Tribunal. The judgment emphasized the new definition of 'kudikidappukaran' and the right to purchase introduced by the Amending Act 35 of 1969, highlighting that only those who satisfied the terms of the new definition as on the date of the amending Act are to be regarded as 'kudikidappukars'.

1. The petitioner in O. A. No. 93 of 1971, an application for purchase of Kudikidappu under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, for short the Act, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The short point that arises for consideration is this. The petitioner was in occupation of a but with permission on 11 1970 when Act 35 of 1969 came into force. The petitioner was then disqualified to be a Kudikidappukaran because he was having land exceeding the limit fixed in S.2 (25) on which he could erect a homestead. Later, he assigned that land and applied for the purchase of the Kudikidappu under S.80B of the Act. The question is whether he has any right under S.80A of the Act to purchase the Kudikidappu.

2. The Land Tribunal, Kozhikode allowed the petitioner's application for purchase, holding him to be a Kudikidappukaran. Against the order of the Land Tribunal, the landowner, who is the Ist respondent in this Civil Revision Petition, went in appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kozhiokde. The Appellate Authority allowed that appeal holding that the petitioner could not claim the status of a Kudikidappukaran under S.2 (25) of the Act as he was having land exceeding the limit fixed in the sub-section on which he could erect a homestead. The petitioner has challenged the above order of the Appellate Authority in this Civil Revision Petition.

3. In Raphael Varghese v. Vareed Pappu (C.R.P. No. 921 of 1974) a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Eradi J.) was a party, has said:

"Counsel argued that since the right of purchase of the kudikidappu was for the first time conferred on the kudikidappukars only by the amending Act XXXV of 1969 which also substituted anew definition for the term 'kudikidappukaran" the eligibility of a person for claiming the said right conferred on kudikidappukars by the amending Act should be determined only with reference to the state of things prevailing on the date of coming into force of the amending Act and the applicant should be granted relief if judged with reference to the facts obtaining on that date he falls within the amended definition of kudikidappukaran. We think there is force in this contention. In the place of the original definition of the expression'kudikidappukaran' which was contained in S.2 (25) of the Act prior to its amendment, a new definition has been substituted by the amending Act XXXV of 1969 and by the same Act a new right has been conferred on kudikidappukars to purchase the rights of the land owner over the kudikidappu in the manner and subject to the terms laid down in S.80A of the Act. As per the new definition incorporated in S.2(25) the expression 'kudikidappukaran' means, inter alia, a person who has neither a homestead nor any land exceeding in extent three cents in any city or major municipality or five cents in any other municipality or 10 cents in any Panchayat area or township, in his possession either as owner or as tenant, on which he could erect a homestead and who has been permitted with or without an obligation to pay rent by a person in lawful possession of any land to to have the use and, occupation of a portion of such land for the purpose of erecting a homestead. In using the present tense 'who has neither a homestead nor any land exceeding in extent... 'the Legislature has made it clear that what is relevant to be considered by the court is the state of things obtaining not at any point of time anterior to the date of commencement of Act XXXV of 1969 but as on the date of commencement of the amending Act which introduced the new definition and also on the date of making the application before the Land Tribunal seeking the benefits conferred on kudikidappukars by the said Act. We see no warrant to restrict the scope of the definition in such a way as to read into it a limitation that only persons who satisfied the terms of the new definition as on the date of coming into force of Act 1 of 1964 as originall