Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in O. A. No. 93 of 1971, an application for purchase of Kudikidappu under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, for short the Act, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The short point that arises for consideration is this. The petitioner was in occupation of a but with permission on 11 1970 when Act 35 of 1969 came into force. The petitioner was then disqualified to be a Kudikidappukaran because he was having land exceeding the limit fixed in S.2 (25) on which he could erect a homestead. Later, he assigned that land and applied for the purchase of the Kudikidappu under S.80B of the Act. The question is whether he has any right under S.80A of the Act to purchase the Kudikidappu. 2. The Land Tribunal, Kozhikode allowed the petitioner's application for purchase, holding him to be a Kudikidappukaran. Against the order of the Land Tribunal, the landowner, who is the Ist respondent in this Civil Revision Petition, went in appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kozhiokde. The Appellate Authority allowed that appeal holding that the petitioner could not claim the status of a Kudikidappukaran under S.2 (25) of the Act as he was having land exceeding the limit fixed in the sub-section on which he could erect a homestead. The petitioner has challenged the above order of the Appellate Authority in this Civil Revision Petition. 3. In Raphael Varghese v. Vareed Pappu (C.R.P. No. 921 of 1974) a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Eradi J.) was a party, has said: "Counsel argued that since the right of purchase of the kudikidappu was for the first time conferred on the kudikidappukars only by the amending Act XXXV of 1969 which also substituted anew definition for the term 'kudikidappukaran" the eligibility of a person for claiming the said right conferred on kudikidappukars by the amending Act should be determined only with reference to the state of things prevailing on the date of coming into force of the amending Act and the applicant should be granted relief if judged with reference to the facts obtaining on that date he falls within the amended definition of kudikidappukaran. We think there is force in this contention. We think there is force in this contention. In the place of the original definition of the expression'kudikidappukaran' which was contained in S.2 (25) of the Act prior to its amendment, a new definition has been substituted by the amending Act XXXV of 1969 and by the same Act a new right has been conferred on kudikidappukars to purchase the rights of the land owner over the kudikidappu in the manner and subject to the terms laid down in S.80A of the Act. As per the new definition incorporated in S.2(25) the expression 'kudikidappukaran' means, inter alia, 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 10 cents in any Panchayat area or township, in his possession either as owner or as tenant, on which he could erect a homestead and who has been permitted with or without an obligation to pay rent by a person in lawful possession of any land to to have the use and, occupation of a portion of such land for the purpose of erecting a homestead. In using the present tense 'who has neither a homestead nor any land exceeding in extent... 'the Legislature has made it clear that what is relevant to be considered by the court is the state of things obtaining not at any point of time anterior to the date of commencement of Act XXXV of 1969 but as on the date of commencement of the amending Act which introduced the new definition and also on the date of making the application before the Land Tribunal seeking the benefits conferred on kudikidappukars by the said Act. We see no warrant to restrict the scope of the definition in such a way as to read into it a limitation that only persons who satisfied the terms of the new definition as on the date of coming into force of Act 1 of 1964 as originally passed are to be regarded as 'kudikidappukars'." 4. Sub-s. (25) of S.2 of the Act which defines 'kudikidappukaran' was substituted and S.80A to 80G which provide for the purchase of his kudikidappu by the kudikidappukaran were inserted by the Amending Act 35 of 1969 with effect from 1-1-1970 S 2(25) of the Act, as it stood after the amendment, reads: "2(25). Sub-s. (25) of S.2 of the Act which defines 'kudikidappukaran' was substituted and S.80A to 80G which provide for the purchase of his kudikidappu by the kudikidappukaran were inserted by the Amending Act 35 of 1969 with effect from 1-1-1970 S 2(25) of the Act, as it stood after the amendment, reads: "2(25). 'kudikidappukaran' means 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 ether 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 and (a) who has been permitted with or without an obligation to pay rent by a person in lawful possession of any land to have the use and occupation of a portion of such land for the purpose of erecting a homestead; or (b) who has been permitted by a person in lawful possession of any land to occupy, with or without an obligation to pay rent, a but belonging to such person and situate in the said land; and 'kudikidappu' means the land and the homestead or the but so permitted to be erected or occupied together with the easements attached thereto: (Provisions which are not relevant here are omitted). S.80A(I) of the Act reads: "80A (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, a kudikidappukaran shall, subject to the provisions of this section, have the right to purchase the kudikidappu occupied by him and lands adjoining thereto." It is immaterial whether a person who was a kudikidappukaran as per the definition as it stood prior to 1 11970 ceased to be one or a person who was not a kudikidappukaran as per that definition became a kudikidappukaran from 111970 because of the new sub-section (25) substituted by the Amending Act 35 of 1969 The kudikidappukaran got the right to purchase his kudikidappu only by the Amending Act 35 of 1969 which was brought into force with effect from 111970. So, it goes without saying that only one who was a kudikidappukaran as per the Act as it stood on 11 1970 will get a right to purchase his kudikidappu. So, it goes without saying that only one who was a kudikidappukaran as per the Act as it stood on 11 1970 will get a right to purchase his kudikidappu. If he was disqualified to be a kudikidappukaran because of the fact that be was having land exceeding the limit fixed by S.2(25) on which he could erect a homestead, he was not a kudikidappukaran on 111970. The further question is whether such a person can get out of the disqualification by assigning away the land afterwards. It is true that the Act does not prohibit the creation of kudikidappu. But that will not help a person like the petitioner. A person who ceased to be a kudikidappukaran can become a kudikidappukaran again only if he satisfies the conditions insisted by the definition. He should have again got permission to occupy the land or the but from the person in lawful possession of the land. Without that, he will not again become a kudikidappukaran even if he continued the occupation. There is no rule that once a kudikidappukaran always a kudikidappukaran. In this case, admittedly no permission was granted to the petitioner after he parted with the land be was having on 111970. So, neither on 11 1970 when the kudikidappukars in the State got the right to purchase their kudikidappus nor at any point of time thereafter the petitioner was a kudikidappukaran as per the Act. So, the petitioner is not entitled to the rights conferred by S.80A of the Act. 5. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) setting aside the purchase ordered by the Land Tribunal and dismissing the application for purchase of the kudikidappu calls for no interference. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.