Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in O. P. No. 3377 of 1973 is the landholder in respect of the property in which the first respondent, who filed O. P. No. 3045 of 1974, is a kudikidappukaran. The 2nd respondent in O. P. No. 3377 of 1973, who is the 3rd respondent in O. P. No. 3045 of 1974, is the Land Tribunal, Tirur, hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the petitioner in O. P. No. 3377 of 1973 is called the 'landholder', and the 1st respondent therein, who is the petitioner in O. P. No. 3045 of 1974, the 'kudikidappukaran'. 2. The kudikidappukaran filed O. A. No. 1523 of 1970 on the file of the Tribunal for purchase of kudikidappu right from the landholder under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. During the course of the proceeding, I. A. No, 108 of 1970 in O. A. No. 1523 of 1970 was filed by the landholder under S.80A (9) of the Act requesting that the kudikidappukaran might be shifted to the south-western corner of the property. After the issue of the statutory notice, an application under S.75 (4) read with S.77 of the Act also was filed by the landholder. That application was taken on the file as O. A. No. 379 of 1973 by the Tribunal; ultimately the Tribunal by Ext. P-2 order dismissed O. A. No. 379 of 1973 on 3 81973. Counsel for the landholder submits that the application O. A. No. 379 of 1973 has been dismissed by Ext. P-2 order without any proper reason and on irrelevant considerations. The reason stated in Ext. P-2 (in O. P. No. 3377 of 1973) by the Tribunal for the dismissal of O. A. No. 379 of 1973 reads as follows: "The evidence of witnesses on both sides were taken. The applicant was not able to prove her case. She is not residing in the land in which the Kudikidappu is situated. The respondent has been residing in the land for a very long time now and the existence of the kudikidappu in the present place has not caused any inconvenience to enjoy the remaining portion of the holding so far. She is not residing in the land in which the Kudikidappu is situated. The respondent has been residing in the land for a very long time now and the existence of the kudikidappu in the present place has not caused any inconvenience to enjoy the remaining portion of the holding so far. The reasons put forth in the application are not sufficient ground to order shifting of the existing kudikidappu mainly because of the fact that the applicant is not residing in the land and that the present kudikidappu will not in any way affect the proper upkeep and enjoyment of the remaining portion of the holding by the petitioner." The Tribunal appears to have been under the impression that sub-section (4) of S.75 of the Act has application only to cases in which the landholder claims to reside in the property involved in the matter; and also that it is its bounden duty to examine the nature and extent of the inconvenience caused to the landholder by the location of the kudikidappu. The provisions in the Act, I am afraid, do not warrant the assumption on which the Tribunal has proceeded. 3. There are three provisions in the Act enabling the landholder to shift the kudikidappukaran by initiating proceedings before the Land Tribunal, namely, sub-sections (2) and (4) of S.75 and sub-s. (9) of S.80A of the Act. There is also provision contained in sub-s. (3) of S.75 for making application to the Government for acquisition of land for the purpose of shifting the kudikidappukaran. There are, no doubt, similarities in certain respects in all the four provisions. However, the basic and substantial differences have to be borne in mind by the Tribunal in order to guard against pitfalls in the application of the relevant provisions to the facts and circumstances of the given case. 4. Sub-s. (2) of S.75 is applicable only in cases where the landholder bona fide requires the land on which there is a homestead in the occupation of the kudikidappukaran for any of the three purposes mentioned therein, namely, (a) building purpose for himself or any member of his family including major sons and major daughters; (b) purposes in connection with the Town Planning scheme approved by the competent authority; and (c) any industrial purpose. In that case the landholder shall be required to pay the kudikidappukaran the price of the homestead, if any, erected by him and also to pay a reasonable amount by way of shifting charges. He shall also transfer to the kudikidappukaran the ownership and possession of the new site to which the kudikidappukaran would shift, situate within a distance of one mile from the existing kudikidappu and suitable for erecting a homestead, the extent of which site shall be the extent of the existing kudikidappu, subject to a minimum of 3 cents if within the limits of a city or major municipality, 5 cents in any other municipality, and 10 cents in a panchayat area or township. 5. The provisions in regard to the extent of the alternate site to which the kudikidappukaran is to shift contained in sub-sections (3) and (4) of S.75 and sub-s. (9) of S.80A are substantially identical with the provisions contained in sub-s. (2) of S.75 in that behalf subject to the difference noticeable in the wording of the relevant sub-section in S.80A. In regard to payment for the alternate site offered or chosen, as the case may be, sub-s. (9) of S.80A provides that the kudikidappukaran is required to pay to the landlord the purchase money, obviously for the reason that the application for shifting arises during the course of the proceedings for purchase of kudikidappu filed by the kudikidappukaran under S.80B of the Act. In the case to which sub-s. (3) of S.75 applies, the shifting has to be to a site acquired by the Government on application of the landholder. 6. One important aspect to be noticed is that the expression "bona fide requirement" occurs only in sub-s. (2) of S.75 out of the four provisions in regard to shifting. Very often Tribunals overlook this vital distinction and proceed on an assumption that the landholder is to establish bona fide requirement in cases to which sub-section (4) of S.75 and sub-section (9) of S.80A apply. The underlined expression used in sub-section (4) of S.75. Very often Tribunals overlook this vital distinction and proceed on an assumption that the landholder is to establish bona fide requirement in cases to which sub-section (4) of S.75 and sub-section (9) of S.80A apply. The underlined expression used in sub-section (4) of S.75. "Where the person in possession of the land in which there is a kudikidappu considers that the kudikidappu is so located as to cause inconvenience to him, he may require the kudikidappukaran to shift to another part of the land which is fit for the location of the kudikidappu.:" shows that where the landholder considers that the location of the kudikidappu causes inconvenience to him he can, rather as a matter of right, without being under any obligation to prove his bona fide requirement for shifting, avail of the provision under sub-section (4) of S.75. No doubt, in the matter of shifting under this sub-section the kudikidappukaran shall have the right to opt for the portion of the property to which the kudikidappu is to be shifted, and that portion has to be in the very same property in which the kudikidappu is situate; and on refusal on the part of the kudikidappukaran to exercise the option in regard to the portion to which he is to shift, he shall be bound to shift to the portion to which he is required to shift by the landholder. There appears to be no scope for the Tribunal to proceed with an enquiry as to whether the bona fide requirement for shifting the kudikidappukaran has been made out or not where the application is one under sub-section (4) of S.75. The right to demand shifting envisaged in sub-section (9) of S.80A is in a different context. That right could be exercised only within one month from the date of receipt of the notice of filing of the application for purchase of kudikidappu by the kudikidappukaran under S.80B of the Act. 7. There is some difference between the provision contained in sub-s. (4) of S.75 on the one hand, and sub-section (9) of S.80A on the other, in regard to the landholder's right to claim shifting of the kudikidappu. 7. There is some difference between the provision contained in sub-s. (4) of S.75 on the one hand, and sub-section (9) of S.80A on the other, in regard to the landholder's right to claim shifting of the kudikidappu. It is not enough in cases covered by sub-section (9) of S.80A, that the landholder considers that the location of the kudikidappu causes inconvenience to him as in the cases covered by sub-section (4) of S.75; but, the Tribunal has to satisfy itself that the portion to be purchased by the kudikidappukaran in pursuance of his application under S.80B is so located as to cause inconvenience to the landholder. 8. Yet another difference between cases covered by sub-section (9) of S.80A and those covered by sub-section (4) of S.75 is that in the former no question of prior notice arises, whereas in the latter, in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of S.77, no application for enforcing the right under sub-section (2) of sub-section (4) of S.75 can be filed by the landholder without giving the kudikidappukaran one month's notice by registered post. The question of prior notice does not arise in the case of sub-section (3) of S.75, as the section only provides for application to the Government stating the applicant's qualification for getting the land acquired for the purpose of shifting. 9. In regard to the alternate site there is vital distinction between cases covered by sub-section (2) of S.75 on the one hand, and those covered by subsection (4) of S.75 and sub-section (9) of S.80A on the other. In cases covered by both S.80A (9) and 75 (4) the alternate site to which the kudikidappukaran is to shift is a portion of the property in which the kudikidappu is situate. However, in both the cases the kudikidappukaran shall have the right to opt for the portion to which he is to shift, but with the further condition that the kudikidappukaran shall not be entitled to opt for any portion which is not adjoining the boundaries of the land, except with the consent of the person in possession of the land. The refusal on the part of the kudikidappukaran to opt the portion to which he should move as ordered by the Tribunal would entail dismissal of his application under sub-section (1) of S.80B of the Act, vide the provision contained in sub-section (10) of S.80A. The refusal on the part of the kudikidappukaran to opt the portion to which he should move as ordered by the Tribunal would entail dismissal of his application under sub-section (1) of S.80B of the Act, vide the provision contained in sub-section (10) of S.80A. The parallel provision on this point contained in the third proviso to sub-section (4) of S.75, reads as follows: "Provided also that if the kudikidappukaran refuses to opt, he shall be bound to shift to the portion to which he is required to shift by the person in possession of the land:" 10. The tendency on the part of the Tribunals to insist on proof of bona fide requirement in and out of place without reference to the relevant provisions of the Act, has to be deprecated, as the legislature has prescribed different conditions and envisaged different contingencies for the application of the provisions contained in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of S.75 and sub-section (9) of S.80A, though there are some overlappings in regard to certain conditions. Each case has to be examined with reference to the provision sought to be invoked without, as a matter of course, insisting on proof regarding the bona fide requirement or scrutinising the extent and nature of inconvenience on account of the location of the kudikidappu or the use to which the land involved is put to, where such considerations are extraneous to the scope of the relevant provisions as would be found on a careful reading of those provisions. 11. Ext. P-2 order in O. P. No. 3377 of 1973, when examined in the light of the observations contained in this judgment, cannot be upheld, for it is not for the Tribunal to import the idea of satisfaction by it about the requirement of the landholder, or insist on a qualification of residence by the landholder in the property for the application of sub-s. (4) of S.75 of the Act, which are conditions not found in the sub-section referred to. It is not also for the landholder to dictate to the kudikidappukaran in regard to the portion to which he (the kudikidappukaran) should shift, as the option was with the kudikidappukaran in the first instance; and the Tribunal was wrong in finding fault with the landholder for not having precisely stated the portion to which the kudikidappukaran was required to shift even before he (the kudikidappukaran) fails to exercise his option in the matter. Considered all these aspects in their true perspective, I am inclined to order as follows: (a) The shifting application under S.75(4) filed by the landlord, namely O. A. No. 379 of 1973, shall be enquired into by the Tribunal afresh in the light of the observations contained in this judgment and according to the provisions contained in the Act, and appropriate orders passed after allowing the parties to make their representations; (b) the question of granting the purchase certificate in respect of the kudikidappu as prayed for in O.A. No. 1523 of 1970 shall be taken up only after the disposal of O.A. No. 379 of 1974; and (c) in view of the fact that the application under S.75(4) of the Act is going back for reconsideration, the counsel for the petitioner in I. A. No. 108 of 1970 (filed in O.A. No. 1523 of 1970) did not press that application. The order of dismissal of I. A. No. 108 of 1970 in O. A. No. 1523 of 1970 dated 14-3-1973, a copy of which is Ext. P-1 in O.P. No. 3045 of 1974, does not call for interference in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs.