Judgment :- 1. The 2nd writ petitioner in O.P. 653 of 1976 (the first writ petitioner died subsequent to the disposal of that Original Petition and the 2nd writ petitioner has filed this appeal in his capacity as legal representative also) which has been dismissed by a learned single judge of this Court is the appellant before us. 2. The writ petitioners filed O.A. Nos. 259 and 260 of 1974 before the Land Tribunal, Parappanangadi under S.77 read with S.75 (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the Act) for shifting two kudikidappus situated on a property belonging to them comprised in R.S. No. 364/6 of Velimukku Amsom to an alternate site comprised in R. S. No. 359/1 of the same Amsom. Respondents 1 and 2 in the Original Petition who figure as respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal also are the kudikidappukars who were sought to be shifted. These respondents had previously filed O.A. No.1 of 1972 before the Land Tribunal, Tirurangadi under S.72 B (3) of the Act for purchase of the right, title and interest of the petitioners in respect of the aforementioned property, wherein the respondents are residing, contending that they are cultivating tenants in respect of the said land. That application was dismissed by the Land Tribunal by its order dated 22-3-1972 holding that the respondents had not proved their status as tenants in respect of the land. The matter was thereupon carried in appeal by the respondents before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Kozhikode. The appellate authority by its order Ext. P2 dated 26-10-1972 affirmed the conclusion of the Land Tribunal that the respondents are not cultivating tenants in respect of the land and held that they are only kudikidappukars in the property. Though a revision petition CRP No. 1384 of 1972 was filed by the respondents before this Court under S 103 of the Act, that was dismissed by this Court as per the order Ext. P3 dated 9th March, 1973. It is thereafter that the writ petitioners instituted O.A Nos. 259 and 260 of 1974 before the Land Tribunal, Parappangadi seeking relief against the respondents under S.75 (2) and 77 of the Act on the ground that the property was bona fide required by the petitioners for putting up a residential building for the Ist petitioner. 3. It is thereafter that the writ petitioners instituted O.A Nos. 259 and 260 of 1974 before the Land Tribunal, Parappangadi seeking relief against the respondents under S.75 (2) and 77 of the Act on the ground that the property was bona fide required by the petitioners for putting up a residential building for the Ist petitioner. 3. The said applications were resisted by the respondents by contending that they were not kudikidappukars but were cultivating tenants of the land. In view of the said contention raised by the respondents denying their status as kudikidappukars the Land Tribunal dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners on the following reasoning: "There is no provision in the KLR. Act and Rules empowering the Land Tribunal to decide whether a person is a kudikidappukaran, or not without his claim. If one says that he is not kudikidappukaran, none can induce he is to accept it. According to S.75 (2) of the Act only a kudikidappukaran can be requested to shift the kudikidappu to a new site. If he does not comply the request, this S.77 cannot come into play. Since the respondents refused to accept their status as kudikidappukars, both the sections are inoperative here." In taking the said view the Land Tribunal relied on certain observations contained in the decision of a learned single judge of this Court reported in Poulose v. Land Tribunal, Alengad (1974 KLT. 597). 4. The petitioners then came up to this Court by filing OP. No. 653 of 1976, out of which this writ appeal has arisen, challenging the legality and correctness of the aforesaid order passed by the Land Tribunal. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition stating that "It is not for this Court to decide whether respondents 1 and 2 are cultivating tenants or kudikidappukars as they are essentially a question of fact which requires investigation in regard to the factual position". 5. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition stating that "It is not for this Court to decide whether respondents 1 and 2 are cultivating tenants or kudikidappukars as they are essentially a question of fact which requires investigation in regard to the factual position". 5. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before us that his client had not sought an adjudication from this Court into the aforementioned question of fact but had only prayed for a direction being issued to the Land Tribunal to discharge its statutory function of adjudicating upon the said question as a preliminary jurisdictional question in the two applications filed before it by the petitioners under S.75 (2) and 77 of the Act Counsel also challenged the correctness of the observations contained in the judgment of this Court in Poulose v. Land Tribunal, Alengad (1974 KLT. 597) to the effect that in cases where a person who is sought to be shifted under S.77 of the Act disowns his status as a kudikidappukaran it is not open to the landholder to file an application under S.77 and that in case the landholder wants to get an adjudication of the status of the occupant of the building he has to move the civil court and get a decision, and submitted that the said decision requires reconsideration. 6. Since the respondents in this appeal were unrepresented we requested Sri. T. P. Kelu Nambiar, Advocate to appear in the case as amicus curiae and we are thankful to him for the very valuable assistance that he has rendered to the Court. 7. The short question to be decided is whether merely on account of the fact that a person who is sought to be shifted from a homestead under S.77 of the Act on the basis that he is a kudikidappukaran disowns his status as a kudikidappukaran, the Land Tribunal ceases to have jurisdiction over the proceedings and the landholder becomes disentitled to pursue the prayer for the grant of relief under S.77. In Poulise v. Land Tribunal, Alengad (1974 KLT. In Poulise v. Land Tribunal, Alengad (1974 KLT. 597) a learned single judge of this Court had occasion to consider the identical question and it was held that when the person who is sought to be shifted from a home-stead on the basis that he is a kudikidappukaran disowns such status, the landholder cannot resort to S.77 of the Act and get an adjudication of the status of the occupant of the home-stead. The reasoning on which the above conclusion was reached is contained in Para.3 of the judgment which runs as follows: "The question that has to be decided is, whether an application for shifting the kudikidappu can be filed when the tenant disputes the fact that the property is a kudikidappu. When a notice was issued to him under S.75(4), he had disputed the fact that the property is a kudikidappu. In spite of that the application under S.77 was filed. Can the landlord file such a petition? According to me, no. The statute confers some special rights an persons who come within the definition of the kudikidappukars. It is for him to claim such benefits under the Act. No landlord can impose on an unwilling tenant, the benefits under the Act. Here, the landlord wants to get rid of the petitioner whose building is in the middle of the property. This attempt is being resisted by the petitioner. When the petitioner disowns his status as a kudikidappukaran, he is either a tenant under the Transfer of Property Act, or a tenant within the other clauses of Act I of 1964. If the landlord wants to get an adjudication of the status of the petitioner, he has to move the civil Court and get a decision. He cannot resort to S.77 of the Act and get the status of as unwilling kudikidappukaran decided. The petitioner claims that he is the holder of a kudiyiruppu-vide: S.2 (57) (b). 'Kudiyiruppu' is defined in S.2(26) as meaning a holding consisting of the site of any residential building and the site or sites of other buildings appurtenant thereto." With respect, we are unable to accept as correct the aforesaid view. The petitioner claims that he is the holder of a kudiyiruppu-vide: S.2 (57) (b). 'Kudiyiruppu' is defined in S.2(26) as meaning a holding consisting of the site of any residential building and the site or sites of other buildings appurtenant thereto." With respect, we are unable to accept as correct the aforesaid view. While sub-section (1) of S.75 confers a qualified right of fixity immunity from eviction - on the kudikidappukaran in respect of his kudikidappu, subsection (2) confers on the landholder a right to require the kudikidappukaran to shift the kudikidappu to a new site subject to the conditions specified in clauses (a) to (c) thereof. Similarly, sub-section (4) confers a right on the landholder to require the kudikidappukaran to shift the kudikidappu to another part of the same land subject to the conditions indicated therein. S.77 then goes on to provide that if the kudikidappukaran does not comply with the requisition made by the landholder under sub-section (2) or subsection (4) of S.75, the landholder may apply to the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction to entertain an application under S.80B in respect of the kudikidappu to be shifted, to enforce compliance with such requisition. In the face of these provisions it is not correct to think that the statute confers rights only on the kudikidappukaran and that it is only for the kudikidappukaran to claim benefits under the Act. In so far as sub-sections (2) and (4) of S.75 or S.77 have conferred a limited right on the landholder to demand the shifting of the kudikidappu and also indicated a remedy for the enforcement of that right, it is perfectly open to the landholder even in a case where the kudikidappukaran decides his status an such to move the concerned Land Tribunal having jurisdiction to entertain as application under S.80B for the grant of relief under S, 77 after conducting an adjudication into the disputed preliminary jurisdictional question as to whether the person who is sought to be shifted is a kudikidappukaran or not. That a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction such as the Land Tribunal, has not only the power to deal with the matters expressly brought within its jurisdiction by the statute but has also the power and the obligation to adjudicate upon collateral facts without which it cannot proceed to decide the very matters for the decision of which it is brought into existence by the statute is now well established. (See Ukkayummakutty Umma v. Choyikutty (1958 KLT. 606) (F.B.) ). 8. It is therefore obvious that in dealing with an application filed under S.77 of the Act, the Land Tribunal is vested with the power and the duty to determine the preliminary jurisdictional fact whether the person who is sought to be shifted is a kudikidappukaran or not when such an issue is raised before it. It is noteworthy that the application under S.77 is required by the Section to be filed only before the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction to entertain an application under S.80B in respect of the property. R.81 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules lays down that where there is a dispute as to whether the applicant is or is not a kudikidappukaran, the Land Tribunal shall decide such dispute as a preliminary issue and record a finding on such issue. S.123 (1) of the Act lays down that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter which is by or under the Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to be determined by the Land Tribunal. The question as to whether a person is a kudikidappukaran or not is a matter which is required to be determined by the Land Tribunal under R.81 framed under the Act. As pointed but by a Full Bench of this Court in Kesava Bhat v. Subraya Bhat (1979 KLT. 766) the effect of sub-section (1) of S.125 is to vest in the Land Tribunal the exclusive jurisdiction to determine such question. As pointed but by a Full Bench of this Court in Kesava Bhat v. Subraya Bhat (1979 KLT. 766) the effect of sub-section (1) of S.125 is to vest in the Land Tribunal the exclusive jurisdiction to determine such question. Such being the scheme of the Act and the legal effect flowing from the aforementioned provisions dealing with the relevant rights of the landholder and the kudikidappukaran, we are clearly of the view that it is open to the landholder to move the concerned Land Tribunal with an application under S.77 of the Act even in a case where the occupant of a home-stead has disowned the status of kudikidappukaran and to get such dispute regarding the status of the occupant adjudicated upon by the Land Tribunal as a preliminary jurisdictional question in the proceedings under S.77. The observations to the contrary contained in Poulose v. Land Tribunal, Alenged (1974 KLT. 597) cannot be regarded as laying down correct law. 9. The sole ground on which the Land Tribunal dismissed the applications filed by the writ petitioners being that the applications could not be maintained in view of the denial by the respondents of their status as kudikidappukaran the order Ext. P5 is manifestly illegal and unsustainable. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the learned single judge, quash Ext. P3 and remit the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. While dealing with the matter after remand the Land Tribunal will also duly examine the legal consequence flowing from the orders passed by the original and appellate authorities in the proceedings instituted by the respondents herein under S.72B of the Act before the Land Tribunal, Tirurangadi. 10. The Writ Appeal is allowed as above. The parties will bear their respective costs. Allowed.