Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in this original petition is a kudikidappukaran whose. grievance is against Ext. P2 order of the 3rd respondent-Land Tribunal, Tirurangadi allowing the application filed by respondents 1 and 2 for shifting his kudikidappu under S.75 (2) and 77 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964, for short the Act. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 504 of 1972, an application under S.80B of the Act for the purchase of his kudikidappu before the 3rd respondent. In the above application respondents 1 and 2 requested for shifting the petitioner's kudikidappu to another portion of the same property under S.80A (9) of the Act. The 3rd respondent by Ext. P1 order dated 14 6-1973 accepted the option of the petitioner to shift to the north-eastern corner of the property and allowed the purchase of that portion. 2. The petitioner did not deposit the first instalment of the purchase price as directed by the 3rd respondent. He also did not accept the shifting charges tendered by the 1st respondent. Thereupon, respondents 1 and 2 filed O.A. No. 253 of 1974 under S.75 (2) read with S.77 of the Act before the 3rd respondent for shifting the kudikidappu of the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the above application for shifting, but the 3rd respondent by Ext. P2 order dated 3112 1974 allowed the said O.A. The petitioner has come up with this original petition against the above order. The question that arises for consideration is whether an application for shifting the kudikidappu under S.75 (2) read with S.77 of the Act will lie in a case where the application for purchase under S.80B of the Act filed by the kudikidappukaran was allowed. 3. Shri P. G. Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the second application for shifting the petitioner's kudikidappu is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner's application for purchase of his kudikidappu was already allowed by the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel further contends that even if the application for shifting lies, it can only be under S.75 (4) of the Act and not under S.75 (2) of the Act in view of the fact that in the application for purchase, the respondents-landlords wanted the petitioner to purchase another portion of the property under S.80A (9) of the Act. Learned counsel further contends that even if the application for shifting lies, it can only be under S.75 (4) of the Act and not under S.75 (2) of the Act in view of the fact that in the application for purchase, the respondents-landlords wanted the petitioner to purchase another portion of the property under S.80A (9) of the Act. The petitioner, as a matter of fact, opted for another portion of the property and the 3rd respondent allowed him to purchase that portion of the property. Learned counsel has also a contention that Ext. P-2 is not a speaking order. Learned counsel further contends that the non-deposit of the first instalment of the purchase price by the petitioner is immaterial in this case because the same can be set off against the shifting charges to be paid to the petitioner. In support of this contention, learned counsel refers to S.80C(2) of the Act. Learned counsel also refers to S.80C(4A) which reads: "Where the certificate of purchase issued to the kudikidappukaran is in respect of another portion of the land and the kudikidappukaran does not vacate the existing kudikidappu within a reasonable time after the issue of such certificate, the Land Tribunal shall cause him to be evicted from the existing kudikidappu." According to the learned counsel, the remedy of the respondents is provided for in the above sub-section (4A). Learned counsel also refers to R.72A of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 which reads: 72A. Eviction of kudikidappukars. (1) If a kudikidappukaran does not shift the kudikidappu before the date specified in the order of the Land Tribunal under sub-section (2) of S.77. or where the certificate of purchase issued to a kudikidappukaran under S.80C is in respect of another portion of the land and the kudikidappukaran does not vacate the existing kudikidappu within a reasonable time, the person in possession of the land in which the kudikidappu is situate may apply in writing to the Land Tribunal requesting for eviction of the kudikidappukaran from the kudikidappu." (Sub-rules (2) to (5) which are not relevant are omitted). Learned counsel further contends that if a landlord wants to shift a kudikidappu to another portion of the same land it is S.75(4) of the Act which has to be resorted to According to the learned counsel, S.80A(9) of the Act applies only when an application for purchase by a kudikidappukaran is pending. It is further contended that having once invoked S.80A(9) of the Act the landlord cannot file a fresh application for shifting under S.75(2). 4. Shri T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, learned counsel for respondents 1 and ?, contends that when an application for purchase is filed by a kudikidappukaran, the landlord can invoke S.80A(9) of the Act and then the option is for the kudikidappukaran to make the choice. Learned counsel points out that under S.80A of the Act the landlord can only shift the kudikidappukaran to a corner and cannot deny him the right to purchase. Learned counsel further contends that by Ext. P-1 order the landlord will not get an executable decree in his favour. Reference is then made to S.80C of the Act. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of S.80C of the Act reads: "80C(2). On the deposit of the first instalment of the purchase price as provided in sub-section (1) or on the deposit of the purchase price in a lump as provided in sub-section (8) of S.80A or, where the kudikidappukaran is not liable to pay hi* share of the purchase price or, where no purchase price is due from the kudikidappukaran after set-off as provided in sub-section (5) of S.80B, after the order of the Land Tribunal under subsection (3) of S.80B has become final, the Land Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed, and thereupon the right, title and interest of the landowner, the intermediaries, if any, and the person in possession where he is not the landowner, in respect of the land allowed to be purchased, shall vest in the kudikidappukaran free from all encumbrances with effect from the date of such deposit or, as the case may be, the date on which the order of the Land Tribunal under the said sub-section (3) has become final. (3) Where a kudikidappukaran fails to deposit the first instalment of the purchase price, if any due from him, on or before the due date, the order of the Land Tribunal under sub-section (3) of S.80B shall stand cancelled and the kudikidappukaran shall continue as kudikidappukaran." Learned counsel points out that S.80C (3) of the Act says that the order allowing the purchase under S 80B (3) of the Act will stand cancelled if the first instalment of the purchase price is not deposited before the due date. According to the learned counsel, in this case, no set off as contemplated under S.80C (2) of the Act is possible. Moreover, the set off cannot be against the first instalment of the purchase price. Learned counsel then refers to R.85 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) R.1970 which enumerates the particulars that must be mentioned in an order on an application for purchase of kudikidappu. Learned counsel points out that in view of the fact that the petitioner did not make the deposit of the first instalment of the purchase price within the time provided, Ext. P-1 order on the purchase application stood cancelled and respondents 1 and 2 were at liberty to file an application for the shifting of the petitioner's kudikidappu. According to the learned counsel, R.72A of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) R.1970 will not apply in this case since no certificate of purchase was issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel has also a contention that S.75 (2) and 75 (4) of the Act are not mutually exclusive and both rights are available to a landlord. Learned counsel then points out that the contention that in view of the order on the application for purchase of the kudikidappu the landlords cannot file an application under S.75 (2) of the Act is not taken in the original petition and hence cannot be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Ext. P-1 order on the petitioner's application for purchase of the kudikidappu cannot in any way prevent the respondents-landlords from filing an application for shifting the kudikidappu. First of all, in view of the fact that the petitioner did not deposit the first instalment of the purchase price before the due date Ext. P-1 order stood cancelled under S.80C(3) of the Act. First of all, in view of the fact that the petitioner did not deposit the first instalment of the purchase price before the due date Ext. P-1 order stood cancelled under S.80C(3) of the Act. So, it is as good as no order was passed in the application for purchase by the petitioner. Even if an order was passed in the application for purchase of the kudikidappu an application for shifting under S.75 (2) read with S.77 of the Act will lie as long as no certificate of purchase is issued. Hence, it cannot be said that because of Ext. P-1 order on the application for purchase the respondents' application for shitting which resulted in Ext. P-2 order of the 3rd respondent is not maintainable. But a question may arise that when in an application for purchase of the kudikidappu the landlord moves the Tribunal under S.80A (9) of the Act and the kudikidappukaran is allowed the option to purchase another portion of that land, can the landlord subsequently file an application for shifting under S.75 (2) instead of under S.75 (4) of the Act. But, this contention is not seen taken in the original petition and hence I need not express any opinion on this aspect of the matter. It cannot be said that a subsequent application for shifting under S.75 (2) of the Act cannot lie at all. No doubt, if there is a change in the circumstances and the landlord bona fide requires the whole of the property it cannot be said that he cannot file an application under S.75 (2) read with S.77 of the Act for shifting the kudikidappukaran to another property. But the petitioner seems to be well-founded in his contention that Ext. P-2 is not a speaking order. Ext. P-2 is seriously lacking in material particulars. First of all, there is no finding in Ext, P-2 regarding the bonafide requirement of the respondents-landlords. Similarly, nothing is said in Ext. P-2 regarding the suitability of the alternate site. Hence, for these reasons Ext. P-2 has to be set aside. I hold that the application for shifting which resulted in Ext. P-2 order of the 3rd respondent is maintainable. But for the reason that Ext. P-2 is not a speaking order, I set aside Ext. P-2 and direct the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders on the respondent's application for shifting in accordance with law. I hold that the application for shifting which resulted in Ext. P-2 order of the 3rd respondent is maintainable. But for the reason that Ext. P-2 is not a speaking order, I set aside Ext. P-2 and direct the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders on the respondent's application for shifting in accordance with law. 6. The original petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.