Judgment :- 1. Admittedly the 3rd respondent is a kudikidappukaran who has erected a homestead on the petitioner's land. It is the case of the petitioner that except 4 cents of land adjoining the kudikidappu occupied by the 3rd respondent the rest are paddy fields belonging to the petitioner. The question raised is as to whether on an application filed under S.80A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 by the 3rd respondent for purchase of his kudikidappu he is entitled to purchase, any land ether than the 4 cents adjoining the kudikidappu and which are not paddy fields. The 2nd respondent, the Land Tribunal, did not in Ext PI order advert to this question. It is said therein, (Ext. P1 order) that the 3rd respondent is allowed to purchase 1C cents of land in the survey number mentioned in that order from the respondent as marked in the sketch appended to that order, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner would mean that the 3rd respondent is entitled to purchase 6 cents of paddy fields besides the 4 cents of land which is not paddy field adjoining the kudikidappu. For that reason the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, the Appellate Authority who as per Ext P 2 judgment held that he was not in a position to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the paddy field portion cannot be made available for purchase. The appellate authority so said interpreting the proviso to sub-section (3) of S.80A along with the proviso to sub-section (2) of the same section. According to the appellate authority the latter proviso would indicate that the kudikiddappukaran is entitled to purchase the legitimate extent as per the statute from the land in which the kudikidappu is situate as well as the adjacent land of the landowner. The correctness of this decision is challenged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. According to the appellate authority the latter proviso would indicate that the kudikiddappukaran is entitled to purchase the legitimate extent as per the statute from the land in which the kudikidappu is situate as well as the adjacent land of the landowner. The correctness of this decision is challenged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. S.80A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 enables, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, a kudikidappukaran to purchase the kudikidappu occupied by him and lands adjoining thereto, but subject to the provisions of S.80A Sub-section (2) of that section restricts the right of purchase to cases other than those where the land owner has not applied to the Government under S.75 (3) of the Act for the acquisition of land, to which the kudikidappu may be shifted, within a period of 2 years from the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 and where such application has been filed, the same has been rejected or the applicant has failed to pay the expenses of shifting the kudikidappu as required by sub-S. (3C) of S.75. Subsection (3) of S.80A prescribes the extent of the adjoining land referred to in sub-S. (1) which the kudikidappukaran is entitled to purchase. That subsection says that he shall be entitled to purchase from the adjoining lands 3 cents it the kudikidappu is situate in a city or major municipality, 5 cents if the same is situate in any other municipality and 10 cents if it is situate in a panchayat area or township The extent so prescribed which the kudikidappukaran is entitled to purchase is further subjected to a restriction by the proviso to that sub-section which reads: "Provided that where the land available for purchase in the land in which the kudikidappu is situate, or the land in which the kudikidappu is situate, is less than the extent specified in this sub-section, the kudikidappukaran shall be entitled to purchase only the land available for purchase, or as the case maybe, the land in which the kudikidappu is situate." I am not in this case concerned with the further sub-sections to S.80A of the Act. The question for consideration is as to whether sub-section (3) mentioned above read with the proviso thereto would in all cases enable the kudikidappukaran to purchase 3 cents, 5 cents or 10 cents, as the case may be, if the land adjoining the kudikidappu and belonging to the land owner is larger in extent than 3 cents, 5 cents or 10 cents, as the case may be. The 1st respondent, the appellate authority has taken the view that in all such cases the kudikidappukaran is entitled to purchase the extent of land stated under the body of subsection (3). 3. It appears to me that to hold as aforesaid and as was done by the appellate authority would make the proviso otiose, for, it goes without saying that wherever the extent of the adjoining land is less than the extent prescribed by the body of sub-S. (3) the kudikidappukaran would be entitled to purchase only that much area for the reason that there are no other lands adjoining the kudikidappu which belong to the land owner. If that be so, the proviso also contemplates cases where the land owner has larger extent of adjoining lands than the extent which as per the body of sub-section (3) the kudikidappukaran is entitled to purchase. The proviso makes it clear that in two contingencies the kudikidappukaran would not be entitled to purchase the full extent of the land he is entitled to purchase under sub-section (3) of S.80A. The first is where the the 'land available' for purchase in the land in which the kudikidappu is situate is less than the extent specified in the body of sub-section (3); the second is where the land in which the kudikidappu is situate is less than the extent specified in the said sub-section. 4. It is contended in this case on behalf of the petitioner that the land that is available for purchase in the land in which the kudikidappu is situate, treating the 4 cents of land which is not paddy field and the remaining portion which are paddy fields as the land in which the kudikidappu is situate, is only the 4 cents of land which is not paddy-field. It is also contended that only the 4 cents of land aforesaid can be treated as the land in which the kudikidappu is situate for which reason the kudikidappukaran, the 3rd respondent is entitled only to purchase this 4 cents of land. 5. In my view, 'the land available in the land in which the kudikidappu is situate' has to be reckoned with reference to the sense in which the words 'available land' are popularly understood in the locality in which the kudikidappu is situate. For example, it may be that a kudikidappu is situate on a small plotless in extent than that is prescribed, say by 2or 3 cents, and which is 20 or 25 feet higher in level than the adjoining land belonging to the land owner. I do not think that in such a case it could be contended that the full extent of land belonging to the land owner taken from the land situate in both levels are available for purchase, for that would obviously mean that a small strip of land becomes a useless piece of land. In short therefore the phrase, 'the land available' has to be understood as a reasonable man understands those words in the area in which the kudikidappu is situate. If so understood it is a matter for determination by the Land Tribunal, if necessary, on evidence adduced before it as to how much land is available for purchase in the land in which the kudikidappu is situate. The Land Tribunal has also to determine whether 'the land in which the kudikidappu is situate' can reasonably be understood as the whole of the land as in this case, inclusive of the paddy fields, or it may be, inclusive of some water logged lands or even, as in the example pointed out, inclusive of the land lying 20 or 25 feet lower in level. These are matters, as earlier pointed out, to be decided, if not with reference to the particular facts of the cases, certainly with reference to how those words are popularly understood in the particular locality in which the kudikidappu is situate. 6. The Land Tribunal has not adverted to this aspect, as earlier said and the appellate authority has also not considered this question from this angle. 6. The Land Tribunal has not adverted to this aspect, as earlier said and the appellate authority has also not considered this question from this angle. It is therefore necessary to direct the Land Tribunal to consider the question of available land as also the question of the extent of land on which the kudikidappu is situate in the light of what has been stated above. I therefore quash Ext. P-1 order and Ext. P-2 judgment to the extent that they hold otherwise and direct the Land Tribunal to consider the aforesaid questions. No other directions are called for in this original petition. The same is allowed to the above extent and only to the above extent. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.