Judgment :- 1. This writ petition seeks to quash Ex. P3 order of the Land Tribunal, Mulanthuruthy, Ernakulam District, on an application filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein for shifting the kudikidappu of the petitioner from the A schedule property in the petition to the B schedule which was offered as a substitute. A petition was filed under S.75 (2) of the Act. and the reason alleged for shifting was that the Respondents required the portion occupied by the kudikidappu bona fide for building purposes. The application was allowed by the Land Tribunal by Ext. P3 order. The petitioners have attacked Ext. P3 order on several grounds. It was said that the Land Tribunal associated an extraneous body, namely the Popular Committee with the proceedings; and the proceedings of the Tribunal violated the principles of natural justice in so far as pw.1 was examined without notice to the petitioner and without affording him a sufficient opportunity either for cross-examining the witness or for tendering his own evidence. Besides these, it was also contended that there is no specific finding by the Land Tribunal that the Respondents required the kudikidappu bona fide for building purposes, and therefore the order directing the shifting of the kudikidappu was not justified and proper. 2. Ext. R-1 filed along with the counter-affidavit of the 1st Respondent is a copy of order sheet of the Tribunal. The entry on 22 61972 is: "adjourned to 6 71972 for objection about the Commissioner's Report and for all evidence (referred to Popular Committee)". On 6 71972 the entry shows: "Popular Committee's Report awaited". On 12 71972 the endorsement shows that no report of the Popular Committee was received, that the applicant was examined as pw.1 and the matter was adjourned to 19 71972 for orders. On 19 71972 the entries show that the applicant and the respondent were present, that the applicant's (Respondent's?) Advocate filed a petition and the matter was adjourned to 26 71972 for evidence and orders. On 26 71972 the endorsement is that the applicant and respondents were present and that the respondents agreed for shifting and the matter was adjourned to 2 e1972 for settlement. It is unnecessary to deal with the endorsements on 2 e1972 or on 9 e1972 or on 16 e1972, which were the next successive hearing dates. On 26 71972 the endorsement is that the applicant and respondents were present and that the respondents agreed for shifting and the matter was adjourned to 2 e1972 for settlement. It is unnecessary to deal with the endorsements on 2 e1972 or on 9 e1972 or on 16 e1972, which were the next successive hearing dates. On 30 e--1972 the endorsement is that the arguments were over, and the matter was adjourned to 4 9 72 for orders. On 4 91972 Ext. P3 was pronounced 3. From the above endorsements in the order-sheet, there are certain things which clearly emerge. Although at one stage, the petitioner herein agreed to shift the kudikidappu and the matter was adjourned for settlement, no settlement actually materialised, and the order eventually passed was one on the merits after hearing the arguments of the parties. It is also clear that after Pw.l was examined nothing prevented the petitioner, if so advised, from cross-examining him. Be that as it may, 0119-7-1972 when the petitioner filed Ex. P1 petition for re-opening the case and having a further enquiry, the same was allowed and the matter was posted to 26-7-1972, for evidence. There is nothing suggest, much the less to make out, that the petitioner herein was denied any opportunity of cross-examining Pw.l, or of leading his evidence. The com-piaint that there was a violation of natural justice and that the petitioner had not been afforded sufficient opportunity to cross-examine pw.1 or to lead his evidence is therefore baseless. 4. But it does appear from Ext. R-1 that the Land Tribunal associated, or attempted to associate, a 'Popular Committee' with its proceedings. This was quite illegal. True, that in this case the Popular Committee did not submit the report which the Tribunal was pleased to await, and there is nothing to show that it either participated or influenced the decision of the Land Tribunal. But the very association of an extraneous body such as the Popular Committee with the discharge of the statutory functions of the Tribunals noxious and is strongly to be deprecated. 5. The petitioner, however, is well-founded in his contention that the Tribunal recorded no finding as to whether the applicants before it bona fide required the kudikidappu for building purpose. Ext. P3 order noticed that the existence of the kudikidappu is inconvenient to the petitioners and was an obstacle against extending their residential accommodation. 5. The petitioner, however, is well-founded in his contention that the Tribunal recorded no finding as to whether the applicants before it bona fide required the kudikidappu for building purpose. Ext. P3 order noticed that the existence of the kudikidappu is inconvenient to the petitioners and was an obstacle against extending their residential accommodation. However, it dealt with the matter in a very unsatisfactory way thus: "I cannot but accept the argument of the applicant that further extension of building or other accessories such as kalappura etc. can be constructed only if the existing kudikidappu site is also made available especially due to the fact that the plot is a triangular one and the existence of 2 families in such a plot may cause inconvenience. In his deposition also the applicant has stated that unless the kudikidappu building is shifted from A schedule property, further extension of building will be very difficult. I feel and conclude that the application has been made with bona fide intention." This cannot constitute a clear finding that the applicants bona fide required the land for building purposes for themselves or for any member of their family The Tribunal did not at all specifically address itself to the questions. What was the building purpose alleged? did the applicants bona fide require the land for the said purpose? and has the said purpose been made out? The finding of the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter cannot therefore be sustained. On this ground I allow this writ petition and quash Ex. P1 and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for entering fresh findings with the evidence already on record on the question as to whether the applicants before it, required the kudikidappu bona fide for building purposes for themselves or the members of their family and passing suitable orders in the light thereof. There will be no order as to costs.