The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'belonging' in the context of ownership and possession under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

GOVINDAN NAIR, C. J.:- This is an appeal by the eight petitioners in O. P. No. 5025 of 1972 from the judgment dismissing the original petition. The appellants were the respondents in an application moved by the 2nd respondent herein under Section 77 read with Section 75 (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for evicting the appellants. The Land Tribunal ordered eviction. In the original petition two points were mainly raised at the time of the arguments. The first was that the notice issued under the proviso to Section 77 (1) of the Act did not even clearly state what was the alternate site to which the kudikidappukars were requested to shift. Secondly it was urged that in the alternate site, later identified, the 2nd respondent did not have full and absolute rights, she having had admittedly only

kuzhikanam Chamayam and possession. The learned Judge found that though there has been a mistake in describing the property nobody had been really misled by the description and the appellants knew which was the property that was meant and in that regard therefore the notice was held to be a valid notice. The second point was also answered against the appellants on the basis that a kuzhikanam chamayam right would be sufficient for satisfying the requirement of Section 75 (2) of the Act where it speaks of 'a new site belonging to him'.

2. Counsel for the appellants has urged before us again the two points that were taken before the learned Judge. On the first point we feel no hesitation in upholding the view taken by the learned Judge. The desom in which the property was situate was wrongly described in the notice. The Land Tribunal also considered this aspect and was not satisfied that the mistake was such as to invalidate the notice. We do not think that in this appeal we would be justified in reversing the finding entered by the Land Tribunal and accepted by the learned Judge.

3. The second point though covered by a number of decisions of this Court raises a point which may require reconsideration by this Court in an appropriate case. We do not wish to express any opinion on this point in this case because not only was the point not specifically taken before the Land Tribunal but, even in the original petition no point such as that was argued before us, had been taken. We would however, in order at least to alert the court regarding the possibility of a different view, indicate the arguments that have been advanced before us by counsel for the appellants.

4. The contentions raised by the appellant's counsel was that the notice itself must specify the property. This, it is said, is clear from the provisions of Section 75 (2) of the Act read with the proviso to Section 77 (1) of the Act. He said that only 30 days will be given to the kudikidappukaran and that he would have to make up his mind whether he should comply with the request for shifting or not. For that he will have to decide on various matters; whether the land to which he is required to shift is a suitable land for erecting a kudikidappu; whether the land is situate within a distance of one mile from the existing kudikidappu; and what is more important whether the person who issued the notice had ownership and possession of the site to which he has been requested to shift. In this regard reference was made to the definition of the term 'owner' in Section 2 (40) of the Act wherein the term has been defined as 'owner' means a person entitled to the absolute proprietorship of land and includes-

(a) a trustee in respect thereof;

(b) a pattadar of ryotwari land;

(c) a kanam tenant as defined in the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955, but does not include a jenmi as defined in that Act."

Special reference was made also to clause (iv) of sub-section (2) of Section 75 of the Act. A person in possession of the land in which there is a kudikidappu can require the kudikidappukaran to shift to a new site belonging to him only subject to clause (iv) of