The court emphasized the need for a balanced interpretation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to serve the social welfare aspect of providing land for erecting a homestead while considering the rights of landowners.

1. The petitioner filed O.A. 7048 of 1970 before the Land Tribunal, Pattanakkad under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for purchase Kudikidappu right in respect of the property wherein he was residing. The first respondent denied his status as Kudikidappukaran as defined in S.2 (25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It came out that the petitioner got under a partition deed and is in possession of 10 cents of dry land and 101/2 cents of wet land. Relying on the above document, the Land Tribunal held that the petitioner is not a Kudikidappukaran and dismissed the petition. The decision was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The revision petition is against the above. When the case came up before a single judge of this Court, reference was made to the decision in Damodaran v. Kunhiraman (1973 KLT.14). The correctness of the above decision was doubted by the learned single judge and that resulted in this reference to the Division Bench.

2. In Damodaran v. Kunhiraman (1973 KLT.14), the applicant was the owner of 71/2 cents of garden land and 121/2 cents of adjoining paddy field The Land Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the applicant was not a Kudikidappukaran under S.2 (25) of the Act. The matter ultimately came up in revision before this Court. The argument put forward on behalf of the applicant was that he was a Kudikidappukaran since be was not in possession of 10 cents of land which was fit to be used for erecting a homestead. Rejecting the above contention, Namboodiripad, J. observed:

"If this interpretation is to be accepted it would mean that a person owning 9.99 cents of garden land and a large area of paddy field yielding considerable income Can claim the status of a Kudikidappukaran. I doubt whether the legislature bad any such intention. What is provided for in the Statute is "any land exceeding in extent ten cents in any panchayat area on which he could erect a homestead". The intention of the legislature is only thai the land owned must be capable of being conveniently used for construction of a homestead and not that the entire 10 cents could be used for the purpose of putting up the homestead. The expression' any land" could not be read in any other manner. Since the applicant has no case that the 71/2 cents of garden land cannot conveniently accommodate a homestead, and since the contiguous paddy land measuring 121/2 cents also belongs to him he has to be treated as a person who has land exceeding 10 cents. And consequently, he is not a Kudikidappukaran within 'the meaning of the Act. His application was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the Tribunal."

3. There is difference between the above case and the present one. The petitioner herein owns 10 cents of dry land and not something less than 10 cents. Unlike in Damodaran v. Kunhiraman (1973 KLT.14), the paddy field is not contiguous to the dry land. Therefore, the argument that the paddy field can be converted into dry land to make up the deficiency in the dry land for erecting a homestead is not available in this case.

4. S.2 (25) defines a Kudikidappukaran as follows:

"Kudikidappukaran' means 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 ten cents in any panchayat area or township, in possession either as owner or as tenant, on which he could erect a homestead and"

The stand taken by the petitioner is that going by the definition, a person ceases to be a Kudikidappukaran only when he owns land on which he could erect a homestead the extent of which exceeds 10 cents in a panchayat area. According to him, since the dry land in his possession does not exceed 10 cents, he falls within the definition of Kudikidappukaran and as such entitled to purchase the Kudikidappu right. The contention put forward is that the paddy field should be excluded while considering whether the petitioner is a Kudikidappukaran and possession of 10 cents al