The landlord must establish the bonafide requirement of the specific site for building purposes, and the kudikidappukaran has a substantial right to purchase the kudikidappu under S.80A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963.

1. The Land Tribunal, Pampakuda by the order impugned in this petition held that the application for shifting of a kudikidappa moved by the petitioner under S.77 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963, Act 1 of 1964, had to be dismissed since the landlord had not established the requirement of the site of the kudikidappa for the construction of building for his residence. The landlord is admittedly in possession of 7 acres of land including the property of 2 acres and 39 cents in a corner of which the kudikidappa is situate. According to the kudikidappukaran the area in the possession of the landlord is more extensive, but on that there is no evidence. The Tribunal found that even on the facts admitted it must be found that there is necessary space available in the property wherein the landlord wants to construct the building even without disturbing the residence of the kudikidappukaran. The Tribunal therefore took the view that the need for displacing the kudikidappukaran from the site which he is occupying had not been established and the claim in that behalf by the petitioner has not been shown to be bonafide. This is a finding on facts reached on very relevant considerations and so it is not for this Court to interfere. Normally the matter should have come to rest at that. But the learned counsel Sri. P. N. Sankaranarayana Pillai, appearing for the landlord, the petitioner herein, took up the stand that it is not for the kudikidappukaran to remind the landlord that he had other land in which he could conveniently construct a building and that it was not open to the kudikidappukaran to dictate to the landlord as to where the latter should construct the building.

In other words the stand taken by the learned counsel is that any landlord could, notwithstanding the fact that he might have other land in his possession equally or more suitable for putting up a building claim that he wants the site of the kudikidappu for the building. The choice in that behalf, counsel contends, must be left to the sweet will and pleasure of the landlord.

2. S.75 (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act deals with the rights and liabilities of Kudikidappukars. That reads:

"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), the person in possession of the land on which there is a home-stead or but (hereinafter in this sub-section referred to as the landlord) in the occupation as a kudikidappukaran may, if he bonafide requires the land

(a) for building purposes for himself or any member of his family including major sons and daughters; or

(b) for purposes in connection with a town planning scheme approved by the competent authority; or

(c) for any industrial purpose, require the kudikidappukaran, to shift to anew site belonging to him subject to the following conditions, namely:

(i) the landholder shall pay to the kudikidappukaran the price of the homestead, if any, erected by the kudikidappukaran;

(ii) the new site shall be fit for erecting a homestead and shall be within a distance of one mile from the existing kudikidappu;

(iii) the extent of new site shall be the extent of the existing kudikidappu subject to a minimum of three cents if within the limits of a city or a major municipality five cents if within the limits of any other municipality and ten cents if in any Panchayat area or township;

(iv) the landlord shall transfer ownership and possession of the new site to the kudikidappukaran and shall pay to him the reasonable cost of shifting the kudikidappu to the new site.

Where the above conditions are complied with, the kudikidappukaran shall be bound to shift to the new site. It Evidently what is urged is that it is sufficient if the person in possession of the land in which there is a homestead or a but in the occupation of a kudikidappukaran shows that he bonafide requires the land for building purpose or other purposes mentioned in the section. This should, according to counsel, be understood as meaning that once the requirement of a si