Judgment :- 1. This Original Petition is filed by a kudikidappukaran challenging the order of the Land Tribunal directing him to shift to a new site mentioned in the order. The respondents 2 to 4 as applicants claimed before the Land Tribunal that the kudikidappu in the A-Schedule property mentioned in the application has to be shifted to the property scheduled as B- Schedule as the former is required bona fide by them for putting up a building for their residence. A notice was issued to the petitioner as required by S 77 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to shift to the new site proposed by them in the notice. The petitioner sent a reply challenging their claim of a bona fide requirement of A Schedule and also challenging the fitness of the new site proposed in the notice. When he refused to comply with the requisition an application was filed before the Land Tribunal for the Same relief. During the course of the proceedings it was found that the new site proposed by the applicants was not fit for erecting a homestead They therefore filed an application for amendment of their application under S.77 by substituting a fresh site for the one earlier mentioned. That amendment was allowed by the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal after enquiry came to the conclusion that the A-schedule property where the kudikidappu is situate is bona fide required by the applicants for the purpose of erecting a residential building and therefore the petitioner must be shifted to another site. It was also found that the fresh site substituted for the earlier proposed site is suitable for erecting a home-stead and that a fresh notice is not necessary under S.77 of the Act. One these findings an order was passed directing the petitioner to shift to the new site. It is this order that is challenged in this original petition. 2. The petitioner contends that on the finding of the Land Tribunal that the earlier site proposed is not fit for erecting a home-stead, the application should have been dismissed for the reason that there has not been a fresh notice under S.77 requiring the petitioner to move to that site. This contention, though was not accepted by the Land Tribunal, appears to me to be legally correct. This contention, though was not accepted by the Land Tribunal, appears to me to be legally correct. S.77(1) and the proviso to it are in the following terms: "If the Kudikidappukaran does not comply with the requisition made under subsection (2) or sub-section (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.80B 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." S. 75 (2) provides that if the person in possession of the land bonafide requires the land for building purposes he may require the kudikidappukaran to shift to a new site belonging to him subject to four conditions one of which is in the following terms: "The new site shall be fit for erecting a home-stead and shall be within a distance of one mile from the existing kudikidappu." S. 75 (2) read-along with S.77 enjoins a person in possession of the land to require the kudikidappukaran by giving him one month's registered notice to shift to the new site mentioned by the person in possession of the land. This notice is mandatory and has to be complied with before an application is made under Sec 77 to the Land Tribunal. The requisition must contain the particulars of the new site to which the kudikidappukaran will be entitled to refuse to shift. In this case the notice that was issued before the application contained the particulars of the new site. The petitioner contended that the new site is not fit for erecting a homestead. He maintained that contention both in the reply notice and in the objection before the Land Tribunal. That contention has been sustained by the Land Tribunal also. That being so, without going into the other contention regarding the bona fide requirement of the land the application should have been dismissed. He maintained that contention both in the reply notice and in the objection before the Land Tribunal. That contention has been sustained by the Land Tribunal also. That being so, without going into the other contention regarding the bona fide requirement of the land the application should have been dismissed. If the applicants wanted the petitioner to move to a different site than that mentioned in the notice, they should have issued a fresh notice and given the stipulated period of one month as required in S.77 and then alone they can file an application to shift the kudikidappu The position cannot be different in a pending application. Though the Land Tribunal may allow an amendment if there is a proper reason, that amendment cannot dispense with the requirement of a notice requiring the kudikidappukaran to shift to the new site. In other words, if the new site proposed in the notice is for any reasons found to be not fit for erecting a homestead, another property cannot be substituted by amendment of the application without issuing a notice to the kudikidappukaran and without giving him the statutory period as mentioned in S.77. This seems to be the scope of S.77(1) read with S.75(2). In this case It is not disputed that there was no second notice to the kudikidappukaran asking him to shift to the site that is substituted for the earlier site. That being so, on the finding of the Land Tribunal that the site proposed in the notice is not fit for erecting a home stead the application should have been dismissed. In that view, it is not necessary to go into the other question whether the property where the kudikidappu is situate is bonafide required by the person in possession for constructing a residential building in the property. The finding of the Land Tribunal in this regard is set aside as unnecessary in the light of the earlier conclusion regarding the new site proposed for shifting. In the result, I allow this Original Petition, and set aside Ext. P3 order of the Land Tribunal, Alangad. The parties shall bear their costs.