Judgment :- 1. The petitioner who got assignment of a property from a person, the total extent of land in whose possession is more than one acre, after 171969 applied on 30 61970 to the State of Kerala Ist respondent under S.75(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquisition of land for shitting the kudikidappukaran in the property. That application was rejected by the Ist respondent on the ground that the transferor of the property where the kudikidappu stands possessed more than one acre of land as on 1-7-1969, after which day only the assignment to the petitioner of the land took place. This order, marked as Ex-P1 is impugned in the proceedings as violative of the statutory provision as, according to the petitioner, the provision which is plain and unambiguous does not preclude a transferee from applying under the section provided he owns or possesses only less than one acre of land. S. 75(3) of the Act reads as follows: "(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), where the total extent of land held by a person, either as owner or as tenant, is less than one acre and there is a kudikidappu on any land held by him, he may, if he requires the land occupied by such kudikidappu for constructing a building for his own residence apply to the government for the acquisition of land to which the kudikidappu may be shifted: Provided that after the expiry of a period of two years from the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, an application shall not be made under this sub-section except with the consent of the kudikidappukaran. Explanation For the purposes of this sub-section (a) the total extent of land held by a person shall be computed as on the 1st day of July, 1969; (b) in calculating the total extent of land held by a person who is a member of a family, the extent of the land held by any member of his family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall also be taken into consideration." I am of the view that reading the provision in a harmonious manner to every part of it, if the transfer of the land was after 17 69, if the total extent of the land of the transferor as on 17 69 is more than one acre, the transferee cannot take advantage of the provision even if he has got only less than one acre of land on 17 69 and even afterwards. The state of things as on 17 69 will have to be taken into consideration. The provision cannot be rendered nugatory by enabling a person who has got more than one acre and therefore disentitled to apply under S.75(3), to take advantage of the same by transferring the property to a person who may not have an extent of land of one acre in bis possession One cannot ignore the policy of the law indicated by the legislature in interpretation of a statutory provision where two views are possible. I am certainly aware of the well known principle that "public policy is a restive horse and when you get astride of it, there is no knowing where it will carry you" (Buroughs, J:, in Fanntlevoy's case). But if the provision can reasonably be interpreted in a manner consistent with legislative policy appearing apparent on the statute, that should be given effect to. I, therefore, hold that Ex-P1 is correctly decided. I dismiss the original petition. There will be no order as to costs. Dismissed.