Judgment :- 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single judge of this court dismissing O.P. No: 5277 of 1972 filed by the appellant herein, who will hereinafter be referred to as the writ petitioner. 2. The writ petitioner is the owner of 29 cents of land in Survey No.61/4 in Vadakke Muri Village, Vaikom Taluk. The 2nd respondent is a kudikidappukaran in the said property and respondents Nos. 3 to 10 are the members of his family residing along with the 2nd respondent in the said kudikidappu. The writ petitioner filed O. S. No. 140 of 1971 in the Munsiff's Court, Vaikom under S.75(2) and 77 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for shifting the kudikidappu of the 2nd respondent to either of the two alternate sites offered by him on the ground that the petitioner required the site of the existing kudikidappu bona fide for the purpose of putting up a building for his residence. 3. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement in the said suit contending inter alia that he had already filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Vaikom for the purchase of the kudikidappu, that the writ petitioner (plaintiff) did not require the property bonafide for putting up a residential building and that the alternative sites offered for shifting the kudikidappu did not belong to the writ petitioner and were also not suitable for residential purposes. In view of the amendment of S.77 of the Act by Act 25 of 1971 the suit was transferred by the Munsiff's Court to the Land Tribunal, Vaikom for disposal and the case was registered by the Land Tribunal as O.A. No. 199 of 1972. The Land Tribunal framed the following five issues as arising for consideration in the case: "I. Whether the description and extent of property under Schedule.1 are correct and whether the gift deed No. 145 of 1970 is valid or not? 2. Whether the applicant bona fide requires to construct a house in the property under Schedule.1? 3. Whether the properties under Schedule.2 and 3 belong to the applicant and whether those are f it for habitation? 4. Whether the applicant has sent a valid notice to the respondent? 5. 2. Whether the applicant bona fide requires to construct a house in the property under Schedule.1? 3. Whether the properties under Schedule.2 and 3 belong to the applicant and whether those are f it for habitation? 4. Whether the applicant has sent a valid notice to the respondent? 5. What is the value of the homestead and shifting charges?" The writ petitioner gave evidence before the Land Tribunal as A.W.1 and the 2nd respondent was examined as R.W.1. A commissioner who had inspected the property and submitted a report while the matter was pending before the Munsiff's Court, was examined before the Land Tribunal as R.W. 2. Ultimately, the Land Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the writ petitioner as per the order Ext. P1 dated 20th November, 1972 an the basis of the finding recorded by it on issue No.2 that the applicant did not bona fide require the land for constructing a house. The Land Tribunal had found issue No.1 in favour of the writ petitioner. In view of the finding recorded on issue No. 2 the Land Tribunal did not consider it necessary to go into the questions arising under issues Nos. 3 to 5. The writ petition O.P. No. 5277 of 1972 out of which this appeal has arisen was filed by the petitioner challenging the order Ext. P1 passed by the Land Tribunal. 4. The main point taken by the petitioner in the original petition was that the Land Tribunal's finding on issue No. 2 was based on a misconception that in a petition for shifting a kudikidappukaran under S.75(2) of the Act the petitioner has to establish that himself or the member of his family for whose requirement the shifting has been sought is not having any facility for residence even in a building belonging to some other person. The writ petitioner contended that once it is satisfactorily shown that the petitioner has no house of his own and that he has a genuine desire and intention to construct a building for his residence in the site occupied by the kudikidappu, his bona fide requirement of the land is sufficiently proved and the fact that the petitioner as well as his wife and children have been residing in a house belonging to his father along with the other members of his father's family does not to any extent disprove the petitioner's plea of bona fide requirement. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the above contention the learned single judge declined to interfere with the order of the Land Tribunal by stating as follows: "The Tribunal has stated only that for the time being the petitioner has not made out a case for shifting the kudikidappu. It does not prevent the petitioner from filing another application if there is such need and the petitioner is in a position to establish that. This writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to bring another application for the same relief if he is in a position to establish that he has got bona fide requirement to shift the kudikidappu." If, as contended by the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal dismissing the writ petitioner's application for the shifting of the kudikidappu is really unsustainable in law, we do not think it right that this court should drive the writ petitioner to institute a fresh proceeding before the Land Tribunal seeking the same relief. Even prior to the date of institution of the suit O.S. No. 140 of 1971 before the Munsiff's Court, Vaikom which was subsequently transferred to the Land Tribunal, Vaikom and renumbered as O. A. No. 199 of 1972 the kudikidappukaran had filed a petition before the Land Tribunal for the purchase of a kudikidappu under S.80A of the Act. The issuance of a purchase certificate was held up only on account of the pendency of the shitting application-O.A. No. 199 of 1972-and the subsequent writ proceeding. Once the purchase certificate is issued to the kudikidappukaran, the land-owner (writ petitioner) will thereafter be precluded from filing any application for shifting his kudikidappu. The issuance of a purchase certificate was held up only on account of the pendency of the shitting application-O.A. No. 199 of 1972-and the subsequent writ proceeding. Once the purchase certificate is issued to the kudikidappukaran, the land-owner (writ petitioner) will thereafter be precluded from filing any application for shifting his kudikidappu. There may therefore be serious practical difficulties and even legal obstacles in the way of the writ petitioner in instituting fresh proceedings before the Land Tribunal for the same relief. Such being the position we consider that this court should go into the merits of the contentions raised in the writ petition and pronounce upon the legality of the order Ext. P1 passed by the Land Tribunal. 5. Issue No. 2 has been discussed by the Land Tribunal in the following paragraph extracted from its order Ext. Pl: "The applicant in cross has sworn that his father has 6 issues including the applicant but has not specified the number of sons and daughters. In chief he has not stated anything about the number of issues of his father. He has not made clear whether he has brothers or not. Moreover the respondent in cross has sworn that the applicant is the only son of his father, that his elder brother died and his brother's wife is alive. In chief the respondent has stated that the applicant's parents, the applicant, his wife and one little child alone are residing in the house owned by the father of the applicant. In cross nothing more has been brought in evidence regarding the inmates of the house. In cross, it is only stated that the applicant's brother's wife is alive but has not stated anything about the place where she is residing. In these circumstances it can only be concluded that, at present, the applicant with his wife and child is residing comfortably in the house owned by his father and that the other members in the house are only his parents. It is seen from the surrounding circumstances that, there is no necessity to construct a house for the applicant. Hence the contention that the applicant requires to construct a house is not found honestly held in relation to the surrounding circumstances. It is seen from the surrounding circumstances that, there is no necessity to construct a house for the applicant. Hence the contention that the applicant requires to construct a house is not found honestly held in relation to the surrounding circumstances. Thus it is proved that the applicant does not bonafide require to construct a house " The sole ground on which the Land Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that the writ petitioner does not bona fide require the land for constructing a bouse is that "at present the writ petitioner with his wife and child is residing comfortably along with his parents in a house owned by his father". What has to be proved by a person who seeks the relief of shifting a kudikidappukaran under S.75 (2) of the Act is only that the applicant "bona fide requires the land for building purposes for himself or any member of his family". The said condition is satisfied if the applicant is able to establish by acceptable evidence that he or the member of his family for whose sake the relief of shifting is sought does not have a residential house of his own and that he genuinely desires and intends to construct a building for the residence of himself or the said member of his family on the site where the kudikidappu exists. It is clear from the order Ext. P1 that the Land Tribunal was labouring under a wrong impression that in addition to proving the aforementioned elements the applicant should also establish that he or the family member concerned has no place at all where he can reside and is under a dire necessity to construct a building. It is on the basis of such a misconception regarding the legal position that the Land Tribunal has held that since the applicant is at present "residing comfortably in the house owned by his father" there is no necessity for him to construct a house. The finding entered by the Land Tribunal being based wholly on its erroneous understanding of the legal position the said finding cannot be allowed to stand. It is therefore necessary that there should be a fresh adjudication of the matter. by the Land Tribunal in accordance with law in the light of the legal position as explained above. 6. The finding entered by the Land Tribunal being based wholly on its erroneous understanding of the legal position the said finding cannot be allowed to stand. It is therefore necessary that there should be a fresh adjudication of the matter. by the Land Tribunal in accordance with law in the light of the legal position as explained above. 6. The judgment of the learned single judge dismissing the original petition will stand set aside. The order Ext. P1 is quashed and there will be a direction to the Land Tribunal to dispose of afresh O.A.No. 199 of 1972 in accordance with law in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. We make it clear that the finding entered by the Land Tribunal on issue No.1 will not in any way be affected by this judgment. 7. The writ appeal is allowed as above. The parties will bear their respective costs. Allowed.