Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was the 2nd respondent in O. A. No. 571 of 1971 before the Land Tribunal, Alangad, and the 2nd respondent was the petitioner therein. O. A. No. 571 of 1971 was as application under S.77 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act I of 1964, for shifting the kudikidappukaran, the respondents therein. The homestead is situated in the middle of the property causing inconvenience. A notice was sent calling upon the respondents therein to shift their kudikidappu. Since they did not shift, as required, the application was filed. The 2nd respondent, the petitioner herein, alone contested the application. According to him, he is cultivating a property 60 cents of land adjoining the property where he is residing. His father was in possession of some property which was surrendered by him. The building and the land were not surrendered. He contended that the property is not a kudikidappu but kudiyiruppu and therefore the application under S.77 is not maintainable. 2. The Land Tribunal found that be was a kudikidappukaran and that the shifting was proper. This petition is filed to quash Ext. P-3 order of the Land Tribunal. 3. The question that has to be decided is, whether an application for shifting the kudikidappu can be filed when the tenant disputes the fact that the property is a kudikidappu. When a notice was issued to him under S.75 (4), he had disputed the fact that the property is a kudikidappu. In spite of that, the application under S.77 was filed. Can the landlord file such a petition? According to me, no. The statute confers some special rights on persons who come within the definition of the kudikidappukaran. It is for him to claim such benefits under the Act. No landlord can impose on an unwilling tenant, the benefits under the Act. Here, the landlord wants to get rid of the petitioner whose building is in the middle of the property. This attempt is being resisted by the petitioner. When the petitioner disowns his status as a kudikidappukaran, he is either a tenant under the Transfer of property Act or a tenant within the other clauses of Act I of 1964. If the landlord wants to get an adjudication of the status of the petitioner, he has to move the civil Court and get a decision. When the petitioner disowns his status as a kudikidappukaran, he is either a tenant under the Transfer of property Act or a tenant within the other clauses of Act I of 1964. If the landlord wants to get an adjudication of the status of the petitioner, he has to move the civil Court and get a decision. He cannot resort to S.77 of the Act and get the status of an unwilling kudikidappukaran decided. The petitioner claims that he is the holder of a kudiyiruppu-vide: S.2 (57) (b). 'Kudiyiruppu' is defined in S.2 (26) as meaning a holding consisting of the site of any residential building and the site or sites of other buildings appurtenant thereto. 4. I would have allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Land Tribunal but for the fact that there are two applications pending before the Land Tribunal, for purchase of kudikidappu and also for purchase of jenm right over the property. I do not have all the details of the petitions pending before the Land Tribunal. If the petitioner herein has also moved the Land Tribunal for purchase of the jenm right on the basis that he is a kudikidappukaran, the other question that he holds the property as a kudiyiruppu cannot be urged by him. But it is stated that he is not a party to that petition. These are matters which can be gone into, only by the Land, Tribunal after scrutinising the necessary materials. Therefore, this case has to go back to the Land Tribunal to consider the question afresh whether the property is a kudikidappu or a kudiyiruppu in the light of the two pending applications before it, and in the light of the observations made above. 5. The question whether notice under S.75(4) is sufficient will also be gone into afresh by the Land Tribunal. 6. The local inspection conducted by the Land Tribunal is not proper. No notice appears to have been given to the contesting respondents before it; nor the notes of inspection made available to them. It was also not proper for the Land Tribunal to fix the value of the house, on the impressions gathered by him on a local inspection and on the evidence of pw. 2. There is evidence contra that it is worth about Rs. 7000/-. It was also not proper for the Land Tribunal to fix the value of the house, on the impressions gathered by him on a local inspection and on the evidence of pw. 2. There is evidence contra that it is worth about Rs. 7000/-. If the order of the Land Tribunal is allowed to stand, the landlord succeeds in two ways: He gets rid of an unwilling kudikidappukaran. He pays only Rs. 2,000/- for a building worth Rs. 7,000/-, according to the petitioner's estimate. The Land Tribunal has to decide the case on better evidence regarding valuation of the property either by deputing the revenue inspector or by issuing a commission if the parties agree. This Court has time and again deprecated the practice of the Land Tribunals conducting local inspection, sometime even without notice to all parties and deciding cases on the subjective evaluation of the disputes involved. 7. The order Ext. P-3 is quashed and the case is remitted back to the Land Tribunal for consideration of the questions in dispute, both on facts and on law, in detail, and pass appropriate orders. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Allowed.