Judgment :- 1. The common petitioner in these revisions holds 1 acre and 11/2 cents of land in a Panchayat area. There are three kudikidappus in them. On the application of the kudikidappukars, the Land Tribunal allowed each of them to purchase 61/3 cents under S.80A of Act 1 of 1964. The appellate authority concurred. Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) of S.80A provides that where there are more kudikidappukars than one in the lands held by a person, the maximum extent available for purchase by all of them will be 10 cents, when the total extent held by such person is less than one acre. Clause (b) fixes the extent available for purchase as 20 cents, when the total extent held by such person is one acre or more, but less than two acres. And the petitioner's only contention is that the sites of the huts or homesteads occupied by the kudikidappukars have to be excluded in computing the extent of the land held by him, in which case the matter Would be governed by clause (a), and not clause (b), as held by the tribunals below. 2. It is urged that the petitioner has been holding the land as "owner", that the term denotes absolute proprietorship under S.2 (40), and that in view of S.75 which in effect gives fixity to kudikidappukars, he had ceased to be the owner of the lands comprised in the kudikidappus with effect from 1-4-64. Such fixity, it is said, detracts from absolute proprietorship I am unable to accept this position for the simple reason that if the petitioner had ceased to be the owner of those lands, there was no need at all for the kudikidappukars to purchase them. He could not have transferred to them what had ceased to be his. S.80B and 80C show that the right, title and interest of the landowner in respect of the land allowed to be purchased vest in the kudikidappukars only when an order allowing purchase is passed by a competent tribunal. The kudikidappukaran does not become owner of the kudikidappu by virtue of S.75; the owner is not divested of ownership until purchase certificate is issued under S.80C (2). A restriction on ownership is different from extinguishment of those bundle of rights which constitute ownership. 3. The kudikidappukaran does not become owner of the kudikidappu by virtue of S.75; the owner is not divested of ownership until purchase certificate is issued under S.80C (2). A restriction on ownership is different from extinguishment of those bundle of rights which constitute ownership. 3. The second point is based on clause (c) of S.80A (12) where under "the sites of the buildings and other structures situate on the land" are to be excluded in determining the extent of land available for purchase. The argument is that the term "building" here includes the dwelling houses of the kudikidappukars also. If the sites in question are not part of the land "liable to be purchased" by the kudikidappukars within the meaning of sub-sec. (4), they cannot purchase them at all. But the provisions of the statute clearly indicate that the kudikidappukars are entitled to purchase the sites also. The purchase price includes the price of the sites. The sites are therefore part of the land available for purchase, and their extent cannot be excluded in the determination of the total extent "liable to be purchased". The term 'building' in S.80A (12) (c) has therefore to be understood as buildings not in the occupation of kudikidappukars. In other words, "sites" in clause (c) do not include the sites in question 4. "Kudikidappu" is defined in S.2 (25) as the land and the hut or homestead occupied by a kudikidappukaran. The word "building" is not used in the definition clause. S.75 to 80G of the Act which deal with "rights and liabilities of kudikidappukars" do not also use the word building or structure in relation to the dwelling house in the kudikidappukaran's occupation. When a landowner wants a kudikidappukaran to shift under S.75 (2), he has to pay the price of the homestead and transfer the ownership of the new site to the kudikidappukaran. This is an instance where the legislature deals separately with the building and the land which together comprise the kudikidappu and advisedly, the word building is not used; what is used is 'homestead'. In the fourth proviso to Sub-sec. (4) also it is homestead which denotes the building involved. S 79 dealing with the kudikidappukaran's right to maintain, repair and reconstruct the dwelling house in the kudikidappu also refers to it as homestead or but only. In the fourth proviso to Sub-sec. (4) also it is homestead which denotes the building involved. S 79 dealing with the kudikidappukaran's right to maintain, repair and reconstruct the dwelling house in the kudikidappu also refers to it as homestead or but only. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to think that "buildings and other structures" in S.80 (A) (12) (c) take in what the legislature has been carefully and separately designating as homesteads or huts. 5. It is but natural that the sites of buildings and structures which the landowner cannot transfer to his kudikidappukars should go out of the reckoning; and it is equally natural that the sites he is bound to transfer should come in. That, at any rate, appears to be the commonsense approach to clause (c) of S.80A(12). The view taken by the authorities below is therefore right and the revisions have to be dismissed. They are hereby dismissed without costs Dismissed.