Judgment :- 1. This case raises as other cases before me have, the question as to the appropriate procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in passing an order under sub-section (2) of S.77 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, for short the Act, requiring the kudikidappukaran to shift the kudikidappu before such date as may be specified in the order. 2. I am in this case concerned with an application based on sub-s. (2) of S.75 of the Act. Under this provision the person in possession of the land is enabled, if he bonafide required the land for building purposes, for himself or any member of his family, to require the kudikidappukaran to shift to a new site belonging to the person in possession of the land subject to the conditions mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of S.75 of the Act. The fourth condition mentioned in the section is that "the landlord shall transfer ownership and possession of the new site to the kudikidappukaran and shall pay to him the reasonable cost of shifting the kudikidappu to the new site". If the person in possession so required the kudikidappukaran to shift and the kudikidappukaran did not shift within a month he may apply under S.77 to the Land Tribunal concerned to enforce compliance with such request. This has been done in the case before me and one of the contentions that was raised by the kudikidappukaran was that the site to which the person in possession of the land required the kudikidappukaran to shift did not belong to the person in possession of that site. The Tribunal has expressed no opinion in Ext. P1 order in this regard. It has merely stated in the penultimate paragraph of the order as follows: "As regards the absolute ownership of B schedule property Tribunal is of opinion that the applicant shall transfer ownership of possession of B schedule on the date mentioned in the order." I do not understand what exactly is meant by ownership of possession. Perhaps it is a typing mistake or a clerical omission or error from an accidental slip. Whatever it be it is necessary to remember that what is to be transferred is ownership and possession. Perhaps it is a typing mistake or a clerical omission or error from an accidental slip. Whatever it be it is necessary to remember that what is to be transferred is ownership and possession. This certainly implies that the person seeking for the shifting of the kudikidappu must have not only ownership but also possession of the site to which he seeks that the kudikidappu must be shifted. S.77 (2) by its wording clearly states that an order requiring the kudikidappukaran to shift the kudikidappu before such date as may be specified in the order can be passed only after the Land Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant has complied with all the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) of S.75. I shall extract sub-section (2) of S.77 leaving out the proviso which is unnecessary for the purpose of this case. 77 (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 section (2) or sub section (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." 3. Without determining the question whether a landlord had ownership and or possession of the site to which he wanted the kudikidappu to be shifted the order Ext. P1 stated in its operative portion. "Applicants shall transfer ownership of possession of B schedule and pay Rs. 650/ towards the price of homestead of shifting charging to respondents on or before 3112 73 and if the above conditions are complied with the respondents shall be bound to shift to B schedule property on or before 151 1974". This is very unsatisfactory. It is not a formality of executing a document relating to some property, that is contemplated by S.75(2)(c)(iv), which insists that ownership and possession of the land be transferred. The Tribunal must be satisfied that ownership and possession has been so transferred. It can never be so satisfied unless it was satisfied that the applicant before it in ownership and possession of the land to be transferred. Enquiry into this matter is therefore necessary and such enquiry must be followed by a finding in all cases where such ownership and or possession is disputed. It can never be so satisfied unless it was satisfied that the applicant before it in ownership and possession of the land to be transferred. Enquiry into this matter is therefore necessary and such enquiry must be followed by a finding in all cases where such ownership and or possession is disputed. It is also desirable to have a preliminary order determining the price of the homestead erected by the kudikidappukaran and deciding the question whether the new site is fit for erecting a homestead and whether it is within a distance of one mile from the existing kudikidappu and whether it is of the requisite extent as contemplated by sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of sub-s. (2) of S.75. The Tribunal must thereafter require the applicant to pay the cost of shifting as well as the price of the homestead erected by the kudikidappukaran and further require the petitioner to transfer ownership and possession of the new site. The case must be adjourned for the purpose of complying with these conditions and after the Tribunal is satisfied that these conditions have been complied with then, and then alone, can it order a shifting under S.77(2). I am not stating that these steps cannot be combined in given cases. But it is imperative that there must be clear findings that the conditions have been satisfied before an order requiring the kudikidappukaran to shift can be passed. From what I have said these requirements have not been satisfied in this case; there has been no finding regarding ownership and possession of the new site. I therefore set aside the order Ext. P1 and direct a further and fuller investigation before disposing of it in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.