Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has come up with this revision petition challenging the legality and correctness of the decision rendered by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Calicut in A. A. No. 1191 of 1972 on its file. That was an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner herein against an order of the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode allowing O. A. No. 180 of 1971 filed by the respondent herein under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for the purchase of a kudikidappu which is situated on the petitioner's property. 2. One of the main contentions which the petitioner had unsuccessfully advanced before the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority is that the application filed by the respondent herein for the purchase of the kudikidappu was not maintainable in as much as it was instituted prior to the expiry of the period of two years for the making of an application to the Government for acquisition of other land for allotment to the kudikidappukaran in cases where the kudikidappu Is situate on a land belonging to a person who owns only less than one acre In all. It is contended that the revision petitioner owns only less than 1 acre of land and was therefore eligible to apply to the State Government under S.75(3) of the Act and that it was incumbent in the kudikidappukaran to wait till the expiry of the said period before moving the Land Tribunal with an application for purchase of the kudikidappu under S.80B of the Act. 3. It is admitted that the petitioner has not uptill now filed any application before the State Government under S.75(3) of the Act even though the time fixed therefor has expired on 31-12-1971 itself. The Land Tribunal passed orders allowing the kudikidappukaran's prayer for purchase of the kudikidappu only subsequent to the expiry of the said time limit, the date of the Land Tribunal's order being 6th July 1972. The Land Tribunal passed orders allowing the kudikidappukaran's prayer for purchase of the kudikidappu only subsequent to the expiry of the said time limit, the date of the Land Tribunal's order being 6th July 1972. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner relied strongly on the provisions contained ib S.80A(2) which lays down that, "where the total extent of land held by the person in possession of the land in which the kudikidappu is situate, either as owner or as tenant is less than one acre, the kudikidappukaran shall be entitled to purchase his kudikidappu and lands adjoining thereto only in cases where the person in possession of the land in which the kudikidappu is situate does not apply to the Government under sub s.(3) of S.75 for the acquisition of the land to which the kudikidappu may be shifted, within a period of two years from the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969." I do not understand this section as prohibiting the filing of an application by a kudikidappukaran for the purchase of his kudikidappu even in cases where it may be ultimately found that the total extent of the land held by the owner is less than one acre. One can well conceive of cases where there may be a bona fide doubt in the mind of the kudikidappukaran or a dispute raised by him as to the actual extent of the land possessed by the opposite party. There is no warrant in S.80A(2) to hold that even in such cases no application can be filed by the kudikidappukaran within the period of two years mentioned in S.75(3) and that if one is filed, it is liable to be rejected on the ground that it is not maintainable. In my opinion, the effect of S.80A(2) is to disentitle the kudikidappukaran from being granted an order for purchase of his kudikidappu within the period of two years made mention of in S.75(3) in cases where the total extent of land held by the person in possession of the land in which the kudikidappu is situate is less than 1 acre. In other words, the bar operates really against the Land Tribunal in the matter of allowing the kudikidappukaran's application for purchase prior to the expiry of the period of two years from the commencement of Act 35 of 1969. In other words, the bar operates really against the Land Tribunal in the matter of allowing the kudikidappukaran's application for purchase prior to the expiry of the period of two years from the commencement of Act 35 of 1969. So long as the order for purchase has been passed by the Tribunal only subsequent to the expiry of the said period, the fact that the application had been filed by the kudikidappukaran within the period of two years will not have the consequence of vitiating the said order. The application, though filed within two years of the commencement of Act 35 of 1969, can validly be acted upon by the Land Tribunal for the purpose of granting relief to the kudikidappukaran after the expiry of the aforesaid period of two years in case it is found that the owner of the land has not applied to the Government under S.75(3) for the acquisition of the alternative land to which the kudikidappu is to be shifted. 4. In the light of the above discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority were perfectly right in repelling the contentions advanced by the revision petitioner that the kudikidappukaran is not entitled to any relief under S.80B on the mere ground that his application for purchase had been filed within two years of the date of the commencement of Act 35 of 1969. 5. Another contention advanced by the counsel on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the site of the kudikidappu is situate within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Calicut and that therefore it should be regarded as urban land to which the provisions of Act 1 of 1974 cannot apply. On going through the order of the Appellate Authority it is seen that what was argued before it was only that the applicant who applied for the purchase of kudikidappu is not an agriculturist and that therefore he is not entitled to claim the benefit of S.80B of the Act. No contention appears to have been taken either before the Land Tribunal or the Appellate Authority that the kudikidappu is situate on urban property in the Calicut City and that therefore the provisions of Act 1 of 1964 cannot apply in respect of the said land. No contention appears to have been taken either before the Land Tribunal or the Appellate Authority that the kudikidappu is situate on urban property in the Calicut City and that therefore the provisions of Act 1 of 1964 cannot apply in respect of the said land. The revision petitioner cannot be permitted to put forward the said point for the first time before this court in this proceeding under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act particularly since it is a matter which requires investigation of fresh facts. The said contention is rejected on this ground. 6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs. Dismissed.