Judgment :- 1. An application filed by the petitioner under S.77 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for shifting the kudikidappu of the first respondent for the purpose of constructing a building for the occupation of his son has been dismissed by the Land Tribunal, Madappally. It has been so dismissed on a preliminary ground. The kudikidappu is situate in the Paipadu Panchayat area. If alternate site had been offered in the said area that should have been of a minimum of 10 cents in extent. But the alternate site offered is 5 cents as the site falls within the Changanacherry Municipal area. S 75 (2) (c) (iii) provides that the extent of the new site shall be the extent of the existing kudikidappu subject to a minimum of three cents if within the limits of a city or major municipality, five cents if within the limits of any other municipality and 10 cents if in any Panchayat area or township. Therefore the new site need be only 5 cents if it is in a municipality subject, of course to the condition that it shall not be less than the extent of the existing kudikidappu. Therein no evidence as to the extent of the kudikidappu and the averment of the petitioner is that it is 3 cents. Whatever that be, it is for the first respondent to show that the extent of the kudikidappu is larger than 5 cents. If that is not shown evidently that is not shown the offer of 5 cents as alternate site in a Municipal area would be within S.75 (2). It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that it has assumed that the extent of a kudikidappu shall be deemed to be 10 cents in the case of a kudikidappu in the Panchayat area. There is no scope for such assumption. What the Act specifies in S.75 (2) (c) (iii) is the extent required to be offered as minimum for shifting the kudikidappu to a new site. Explanation I to S.2 (25) has no relevance in this context. There is no scope for such assumption. What the Act specifies in S.75 (2) (c) (iii) is the extent required to be offered as minimum for shifting the kudikidappu to a new site. Explanation I to S.2 (25) has no relevance in this context. The kudikidappukaran is defined as a person who has neither a homestead nor any land exceeding in extent three cents in any city or major municipality or five cents in any other municipality or ten cents in any Panchayat area or township in possession either as owner or as tenant on which he could erect a homestead. The latter part of the definition may not be relevant except to notice that kudikidappu is defined as meaning the land and the homestead or the but so permitted to be erected or occupied together with the easements attached thereto. Kudikidappu is that to which a kudikidappukaran gets right. The land of the kudikidappukaran is that which disqualifies him from claiming kudikidappu right in case such land exceeds in extent the specified area. Kudikidappu land is not treated as his land but only land concerning which he has permission either to erect a homestead or live therein or to occupy with or without the obligation to pay rent. That is not his land and that is referred by the specific term kudikidappu in the section. The Explanation refers not to a kudikidappu but to the land of a kudikidappukaran which is evidently land independent of the kudikidappu possessed by the kudikidappukaran and on which he could possibly erect a homestead. May be that a person claiming to be a kudikidappukaran is in possession of land below 3 cents in a city or major municipality, below five cents in any other municipality and below 10 cents in any panchayat area of township But for the explanation the disqualification may not be applicable to him but the Explanation provides for the equivalents and therefore he may be disqualified from claiming the kudikidappu right if on adding together he is seen to be in possession of land in excess of the minimum Whatever that be, Explanation I does not refer to the extent of kudikidappu. It refers to the land of the kudikidappukaran. It refers to the land of the kudikidappukaran. As such there is no scope for the assumption that the extent of every kudikidappu is what is mentioned in Explanation I. Any such assumption will lead to anomalous, if not ridiculous, results, for, if there is such a presumption then there is no scope for S.75 (2) (c) (iii) of the Act. The Land Tribunal was therefore in error in rejecting the application on the ground that alternate site offered is not adequate. The order is set aside. The petition shall be tried on other matters arising for decision and disposed of in accordance with law. The Original Petition is allowed as above. No costs. Allowed.