Judgment :- 1. The question raised is short and the facts are not in dispute. The petitioner before me is the owner of a slice of land wherein the respondent is residing. I may call the petitioner as land -owner and the respondent as applicant. The applicant moved the Land Tribunal under S.80B of Act 1 of 1964 for appropriate orders enabling him to purchase the homestead alleging that he is a kudikidappukaran within the meaning of S.2 (25) of Act 1 of 1964. The land-owner resisted contending that the applicant is not a kudikidappukaran as defined in S.2 (25). It is common case that the applicant along with his brother owns 40 cents of land out of which 15 cents is garden land and the rest is paddy field. It is also not disputed before "me" by the applicant that he is entitled to a half share in the entire 40 cents which would mean that he owns 1 cents of garden land and 121/2 cents of adjoining paddy field. The Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the applicant is not a kudikidappukaran within the meaning of the relevant provision of the Act. On appeal by the applicant the appellate authority reversed that decision on the ground that since the garden land to which the applicant is entitled falls short of the ten cents referred to in S.2 (25) of the Act the applicant must be deemed to be a kudikidappukaran. It is the correctness of that decision that is challenged in this revision preferred by the aggrieved land-owner. 2. The amendment to sub-section 25 of S.2 made by the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 1972 (Act 17 of 1972) is not relevant for the purpose of this case. The relevant provision of S.2 (25) is extracted below: "'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 disputed property is in a panchayat area, and consequently, the extent of the property for the purpose of the statutory provision is ten cents. I may even at this stage mention that applicant has no case that the 71/2 cents of garden land belonging to him is not extensive enough to construct a homestead. His case which found favour with the appellate authority is that in view of the provisions of the statute every portion of the ten cents must be capable of being used for construction of the homestead. If this interpretation is to be accepted it would mean that a person owing 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 extentten cents in any panchayat area on which he could erect a homestead". The intention of the legislature is only that the land owned must be capable of being conveniently used for construction of a homestead and not that the entire ten 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 ten cents. And consequently, he is not a kudikidappukaran within the meaning of the Act. His application was, therefore rightly dismissed by the Tribunal. In the result, the order passed by the appellate authority is hereby set aside and that passed by the Tribunal is restored. The revision is allowed. No costs.