Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a kudikidappukaran in a land bearing Sy. No. 411/1/3 in Pampady Village belonging to the second respondent, and having an extent of 50 cents. The second respondent filed a suit in the Munsiff's Court Kottayam under S.77 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 against the petitioner to shift bis homestead to a neighbouring land bearing Survey No. 702/3A in Pampady Village. The petitioner then filed an application under S.80B of the Act before the first respondent, the Land Tribunal, Pampady for purchase of his kudikidappu and the land adjoining thereto. Consequent on the amendment of the Act, the suit filed by the second respondent was transferred to the first respondent, who by his order. Ext. P-1 dated 2011972 allowed the second respondent's application. The petitioner's application must have been dismissed. This writ petition has been filed to quash the aforesaid order. 2. The main ground urged by the petitioner's counsel is that the requirements of the Statute for passing the impugned order have not been satisfied, in that the first respondent has not described the property into which the petitioner's homestead has to be shifted with ascertainable certainty, that he has not fixed the price for the homestead or provided for payment of the same, and that he has also not provided either for payment of the shifting charges or for the transfer of the land into which the homestead is to be shifted. It is also contended that the impugned order was passed without taking any evidence, and that at any rate there is no material to support the finding that the application of the second respondent was bona fide. 3. The contentions raised by the counsel naturally demand a proper understanding of the relevant statutory provisions. S.75(1) of the Act confers fixity for kudikidappu subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Sub-s. (2) of S.75 provides, among other things, that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-s. (1) the landlord, if he bona fide requires the land for building purposes for himself or any member of his family including major sons and daughters, may require the kudikidappukaran to shift to a new site belonging to him subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Sub-s. (2) of S.75 provides, among other things, that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-s. (1) the landlord, if he bona fide requires the land for building purposes for himself or any member of his family including major sons and daughters, may require the kudikidappukaran to shift to a new site belonging to him subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The application in this case was made by the second respondent on the ground that the land in question was required for the purpose of constructing a house for the residence of his daughter. The conditions to be satisfied for entitling the landlord for eviction under Sub-s. (2) are: (i) the landholder shall pay to the kudikidappukaran the price of the homestead; (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 the 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; and (iv) the landholder shall transfer ownership and possession of the new site to the kudikidappukaran and shall pay him the reasonable cost of shifting the kudikidappu to the new site. Sub-s. (2) also provides that where the above conditions are complied with, the kudikidappukaran shall be bound to shift to the new site. S.77 provides that, if the kudikidappukaran does not comply with the requisition made under Sub s. (2) or (4) of S.75, the landholder may apply to the Land Tribunal to enforce compliance with such requisition; and that section also lays down the procedure. It reads: "Procedure to enforce shifting of kudikidappu in certain cases. (1) If the kudikidappukaran does not comply with the requisition made under sub-s. (2) or sub-s. (4) of S.75 by the person in possession of the land to shift to a new site, such person may apply to the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction to entertain an application under S.808 in respect of the kudikidappu to be shifted, to enforce compliance with such requisition: Provided that no application under this sub-section shall be made without giving the kudikidappukaran one month's notice by registered post. (2) The Land Tribunal, after such inquiry as it deems fit, and on being satisfied that the applicant has complied with all the conditions mentioned in sub-s. (2) or sub-s.(4), as the case may be, of S.75 may pass an order requiring the kudikidappukaran to shift the kudikidappu before such date as may be specified in the order: Provided that no such order shall be passed in any case where a certificate of purchase has been issued under S.80C in respect of the kudikidappu. (3) If the kudikidappukaran does not shift the kudikidappu before the date specified in the order under sub-s. (2), the Land Tribunal shall cause the kudikidappukaran to be evicted from the kudikidappu." It is clear from sub-s. (2) of S.75 that the kudikidappukaran is bound to shift to the new site only after the conditions mentioned therein are complied with by the landholder. If the kudikidappukaran agrees to shift on compliance with the said conditions by the landholder, the matter ends there. If he does not agree to shift in spite of the offer to comply with these conditions, the landholder can enforce his requisition through the Land Tribunal by applying under S.77. The Land Tribunal can pass the order for shifting, only subject to the condition that the landholder complies with the requirements under S.75 (2). As already stated, it is only after that, the liability to shift arises. All that the Land Tribunal does is to enforce that liability. That would mean that the order under Subsection (2) of S.77 which the Land Tribunal passes has to provide for complying with the aforesaid conditions. In other words, the Land Tribunal has to fix the price of the homestead, the new site to which the homestead has to be shifted and its extent, and also the cost of shifting the kudikidappu. The time for the shifting has to be fixed from the date of complying with all these conditions. Then alone Sub-section (3) of S 77, which empowers the Land Tribunal to cause the eviction of the kudikidappukaran in case he does not shift within the time fixed, comes into application. The time for the shifting has to be fixed from the date of complying with all these conditions. Then alone Sub-section (3) of S 77, which empowers the Land Tribunal to cause the eviction of the kudikidappukaran in case he does not shift within the time fixed, comes into application. This does not involve any risk on the part of the landholder, by his complying with all the said conditions before the kudikidappukaran actually shifts, since the landholder can enforce the order for shifting, in case the kudikidappukaran does not comply with the said order within the time allowed. 4. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order is defective, as H does not describe with ascertainable certainty the boundaries of the new site, though its extent and Sy. No. are mentioned. The order also does not fix the price to be paid by the landholder for the homestead. The time for shifting has to be fixed not from the date of the order, but from the date on which the landholder complies with the requisite conditions. 5. I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the Land Tribunal's finding that the demand of the landholder was bonafide cannot be sustained. Nothing has been stated even in the Original Petition to show that the landholder's requirement was not bona fide. It is also contended that the new site to which the kudikidappu is ordered to be shifted is lacking in many facilities. This is a matter which the Land Tribunal has considered, and the objection taken to his finding in that matter cannot be sustained. 6. For the reasons stated above, I quash the impugned order Ext. P-1. and direct the Land Tribunal to take the second respondent's application to his file and dispose of the same according to law and in the light of the principles herein stated. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.