Judgment :- 1. These writ petitions are between the same parties. The petitioner in O.P. No. 3136 of 1977 is the first respondent in the other original petition. Respondents 3 and 4 in O. P. No. 3136 of 1977 are the two petitioners in the other original petition. The point arising for decision in both the cases is also the same. I will hereinafter refer to the parties as they are arrayed in O. P. No. 3136 of 1977. 2. The petitioner, according to her, owns and possesses 52 cents of land in R. S.17/2 of Thilanoor desom. On the said plot of land there is a hut. Respondents 3 and 4, being mother and son, are residing in that hut. They began their residence therein on a koolichit executed by the 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent filed O. A. No. 464/70 before the Land Tribunal, Edakkad for purchase of the kudikidappu occupied by respondents 3 and 4 as contemplated by S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter, the Act). The Land Tribunal, Edakkad allowed that application on 27-10-1971. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same as A. A. No. 1255 of 1971 before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kozhikode. That appeal was dismissed on 11-7-1972. A copy of the judgment of the Appellate Authority is marked in O. P. No. 3136 of 1977 as Ext. PI. While dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Authority also said : "subject to the result of the shifting application (O. A. 188/72 of the Edakkad Land Tribunal filed by the appellant)". 3. O. A. No. 188 of 1972 referred to in Ext. P1 judgment is an application filed by the petitioner under S.77 of the Act. The petitioner filed that application after the application filed by the 3rd respondent under S 80B was allowed on 27-10-1971 and during the pendency of A. A. No. 1255 of 1971 preferred by the 3rd respondent. To be precise, the 3rd respondent filed the shifting application under S.77 of the Act on 10-5-1972. 4. The Land Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's shifting application, O. A. 118/72, on 24-7-1973. The petitioner thereupon approached this Court filing O. P. No 2831 of 1973. This Court disposed of that writ petition on 28-10-1974. To be precise, the 3rd respondent filed the shifting application under S.77 of the Act on 10-5-1972. 4. The Land Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's shifting application, O. A. 118/72, on 24-7-1973. The petitioner thereupon approached this Court filing O. P. No 2831 of 1973. This Court disposed of that writ petition on 28-10-1974. This Court set aside the order dismissing O. A. No. 188 of 1972 and remitted back the case to the Land Tribunal directing it to consider the matter afresh in the light of the decision in Amina v. Land Tribunal, Badagara (1974 KLT. 496). (It appears that O. A. No. 188/72 was dismissed for the reason and on the ground that the land to which the kudikidappu was sought to be shifted did not belong to her in so far as she had only a kanom right in respect of the same). After the shifting application was remanded to the Land Tribunal, the same was taken on file of Land Tribunal No II. Cannanore as O. A. No. 13773 of 1976. The Land Tribunal dismissed O. A. No. 13773/76 by its order dated 27-6-1977. A copy of that order is marked as Ext. P1 in O. P. No. 3416 of 1980. The Land Tribunal said that in view of the amendment brought about to S.77 of the Act and particularly in view of the second proviso to S.77(1) therein, the Land Tribunal is not competent to "entertain the petitioner's shifting application". The petitioner preferred an appeal from the said order before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Cannanore. That authority by judgment dated 30-6-1980 allowed the appeal. A copy of that judgment is marked in O P 3416of 1980 as Ext. P2. According to the Appellate Authority: "since the order passed by the Land Tribunal was not in force on 10-5-1972 as the appeal against O. A No. 464/70 was pending till 11-7-1972 the application for shifting under S.77 is maintainable" 5.The petitioner impugns Ext. P2 order in O.P.No. 3136 of 1977 dismissing O. A. No. 13773 of 1976, the shifting application filed by her. While filing the said writ petition, the petitioner also preferred an appeal against the very same order which was allowed by Ext. P2 order in O.P.No. 3136 of 1977 dismissing O. A. No. 13773 of 1976, the shifting application filed by her. While filing the said writ petition, the petitioner also preferred an appeal against the very same order which was allowed by Ext. P2 judgment of the Appellate Authority (marked in O P. No. 3416/80) dated 30-6-1980 The petitioner in O. P. 3136 of 1977 impugns the decision in O. A. 13773 of 1976 and the petitioners in the other original petition impugn the decision in A. A. No. 3094/78 arising from O. A. No. 13773 of 1976. 6. The proviso to sub-section (2) of S.77, till the section was amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976 was as follows:- "Provided that no such order shall be passed in any case where a certificate of purchase has been issued under S.80C in respect of the kudikidappu". The order contemplated by the said proviso is an order under sub-section (2) whereunder the Land Tribunal after such enquiry as it deems fit, and on being satisfied that the applicant has complied with all the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) or sub-section (4), as the case may be, of S.75, may pass an order requiring the kudikidappukaran to shift the kudikidappu before such date as may be specified in the order. The corresponding proviso to S.80B (3) is:-"provided that where an application under sub-section (1) of S.77 in respect of the kudikidappu is pending, the Land Tribunal shall not pass any order under this sub-section before the disposal of that application". Thus the bar on passing an order under S.77 (2) directing shifting of the kudikidappu was that such an order could not be passed after issue of the certificate of purchase as envisaged by S.80C in respect of the kudikidappu in question. The same time the proviso to S.80B (3) provided that during the pendency of an application under S.77, no order under S.80B could be passed. By the Amending Act the proviso to sub-section (2) of S.77 was omitted and a further proviso was added to subsection (1) of S.77 as the second proviso thereto. The same time the proviso to S.80B (3) provided that during the pendency of an application under S.77, no order under S.80B could be passed. By the Amending Act the proviso to sub-section (2) of S.77 was omitted and a further proviso was added to subsection (1) of S.77 as the second proviso thereto. The second proviso to S.77 (1) reads: "Provided further thai the Land Tribunal shall not entertain any application under this sub-section in respect of a kudikidappu, if an order under sub-section (3) of S.80B allowing an application for the purchase of that kudikidappu has been passed and such order is in force." (Emphasis supplied) The prohibition now is on the entertainment of an application under S.77; no such application can be entertained by a Land Tribunal if an order under sub-section (3) of S.80B allowing an application for the purchase of the kudikidappu had been passed and such order is in force. Mark, the proviso to sub-section (2) of S.77 earlier obtained prohibited passing of an order and that too only if a certificate of purchase has been issued under S 80C in respect of the kudikidappu The conjoint effect of the second proviso to S.77 (I) introduced by the Amending Act of 1976 and the proviso to S.80B(3) is that while during the pendency of an application under S.77 the Land Tribunal shall not pass an order for purchase of kudikidappu under S.80B, an application under S.77 for shifting the kudikidappu is not entertainable after an order under S.80B (3) allowing purchase of the kudikidappu has been passed. 7. The Amending Act of 1976 came into force on 25-3-1976. After the Amending Act came into force certificate of purchase was issued in the purchase application under S.80B filed by respondents 3 and 4. This was on 23-4-1977. At the time the Amending Act came into force O. A. 188 of 1972 was pending before the Land Tribunal No. II, Cannanore, who had registered the same as O. A. No. 13773/76 pursuant to the direction given by this Court in O. P. No. 2831 of 1973. This was on 23-4-1977. At the time the Amending Act came into force O. A. 188 of 1972 was pending before the Land Tribunal No. II, Cannanore, who had registered the same as O. A. No. 13773/76 pursuant to the direction given by this Court in O. P. No. 2831 of 1973. The question for consideration in these cases is as to whether the said application which is one for shifting filed by the petitioner under S.77 of the Act can be entertained by the Land Tribunal in so far as the application for purchase filed by the 3rd respondent under S.80B of the Act has been allowed by the Land Tribunal on 27-10-1971 and the appeal preferred against the same by the petitioner has been dismissed on 11-7-1972. The order contemplated by S.80B (3) is an order on an application under S.80B (1) for purchase of the kudikidappu. 8. In O P. No. 4468 of 1975 (1976 KLT. SN 88) one of us had occasion to consider the effect of the amendment to S.77 by introducing the second proviso to S.77 (I) of the Act. Therein it was pointed out as follows: "After the filing of the original petition the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, 20/75 was promulgated and the same was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 11-12-1975. This Ordinance was followed by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976, Act 15/76. By S.6 of the Ordinance and S.5 of the Act, S.77 of the Principal Act was modified. The proviso obtained after sub-section (2) of S.77 was deleted, and a further proviso was added to sub-section (I) of S.77. The proviso to sub-section (2) of S 77 which had been deleted by the Ordinance and the amending Act provided that no order for shifting shall be passed in any case where the certificate of purchase had been issued under S.80C in respect of the kudikidappu. The 2nd proviso that was added to sub-section (1) of S.77 by the amending Act and the Ordinance, stated that the Land Tribunal shall not 'entertain any application' under S.77 (1) in respect of a kudikidappu if an order under sub-section (3) of S.80B allowing an application for purchase of that kudikidappu has been passed and such order is in force. Evidently in the case on hand an order under sub-section (3) of S.80B has been passed as earlier said and is in force, though certificate of purchase has not been issued as contemplated under S.80C of the Act. For this reason it is contended on behalf of the respondents that even if I interfere with Ext. P1 order and the matter is sent back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration that Tribunal would not be in a position to 'entertain the application' and dispose of them on merits. The contention is that, in view of the statutory amendments made by the Ordinance and the Amending Act, no application under S.77 (1) of the Act could be disposed of on merits." 9. In the decision mentioned above the word "entertain" was construed as meaning "to deal with or admit to consideration". So construing it was held: "Therefore, the 2nd proviso to S.77 (1) has to be understood as prohibiting the Land Tribunal from dealing with or admitting to consideration any application under sub-section (1) of S.77. If so understood the learned counsel for the respondent is well-founded in his submission that it will be futile on my part to interfere with Ext. P1 order and to remit the matter for fresh consideration to the Land Tribunal." In holding so the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd v. Assistant Commr. (Judl) I. SalesTax, Kanpur Ranee (AIR. 1968 S. C. 488), Hindusthan Comml. Bank v. Punnhu Sahu (AIR 1970 S. C. 1384) and Mls Lalitha Prasad Khinni Lal v. Assistant Commr. (Judl.) Sales Tax, Kanpur Range /, and another (AIR. 1972 S. C. 401) were relied on 10. We are in agreement with the construction placed on the word "entertain" in Ouseph Mathew v. Gouri Pappan and others. (O. P. No. 4468 of 1975:1976 KLT. S. N. 88) A Division Bench of this Court in Mohanan v. Vakil Chand Johr and others (ILR.1979 II Kerala 142:1978 KLT. 920) construing the word "entertain" in the last proviso to S.10 (I) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 said as follows: "The words 'admit' and 'entertain' have different connotations. (O. P. No. 4468 of 1975:1976 KLT. S. N. 88) A Division Bench of this Court in Mohanan v. Vakil Chand Johr and others (ILR.1979 II Kerala 142:1978 KLT. 920) construing the word "entertain" in the last proviso to S.10 (I) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 said as follows: "The words 'admit' and 'entertain' have different connotations. The import of the word 'entertain' was considered by the Supreme Court in Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax (1968 SC 488) in interpreting the proviso to S 9 of the U P. Sales Tax Act which contained a prohibition against entertainment of appeal from assessment if a condition was not satisfied. The controversy was about the stage at which the appeal could be said to be 'entertained', whether it was at the stage of filing or admitting or the hearing and disposing. Certain previous decisions of the Allahabad High Court holding that the word "entertain" meant "adjudicate upon" or "proceed to consider on merits" were approved by the Supreme Court in its decision. The meaning of the word as given in dictionary "to deal with or admit of consideration" was also considered there. What was held there was that the word 'entertainment' meant the point of time when the appeal was being considered. That decision was followed by the same Court in Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Punnu Sahu (1970 SC, 1384) in interpreting the word 'entertain' appearing in 0.21, R.90 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Allahabad High Court. The same meaning was given to the word 'entertain' occurring in S.32 and the second proviso to S.77 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in two decisions of this Court, Kadir Mohammed v Augusty Varghese (1969 KLT. 739) and Ouseph Mathew v. Gouri Pappan and others (0 P. No. 4468 of 1975). Thus "entertain" in a legal term which has been used in several statutes and which has received judicial interpretation as meaning "to admit of consideration". 11. The term "no application for compensation under this section shall be entertained" in S.110A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was examined by a Full Beech of this Court in Janaki Pillai Ponnama Pillai v. K Azhakiya Nambi (M. F. A. 112/79:1981 KLT. 11. The term "no application for compensation under this section shall be entertained" in S.110A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was examined by a Full Beech of this Court in Janaki Pillai Ponnama Pillai v. K Azhakiya Nambi (M. F. A. 112/79:1981 KLT. 479) Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court it was held that that term means that it shall not be admitted to consideration and decided on merits and does not mean "filed or received." 12. It is contended that in so far as the decision in A. A No. 1255 of 1971 (Ext. P1 in O P. No 3136 of 1977) dismissing the appeal preferred by the-petitioner against the application allowing purchase of kudikidappu is "subject to the result of the shifting application (0 A. 188/72 of the Eda-kkad Land Tribunal, filed by the appellant)", the order on the purchase application passed under S.80B was not in force from and after the date of Ext P1 judgment mentioned above, namely, 11-7-1972. The submission is that therefore the second proviso to S.77 of the Act is not attracted to the instant case. 13. The result of the shifting application is to depend upon the provisions governing such an application which are contained in S.77 of the Act. One of the provisions in S.77 is the second proviso to S.77(1) of the Act, whereunder no application for shifting could be "entertained" once an order under S.80B(3) has been passed. Such an order has been passed in the case and the vigour thereof has not been taken away by the dismissal of the appeal, AA No. 1255 of 1971 by Ext. P1 judgment. The order on O. A. 464 of 1970 the purchase application under S 80B filed by the 3rd respondent was in force at the time Ext. P1 judgment was rendered and also thereafter. As a matter of fact, by giving effect to the order allowing the purchase application, the certificate of purchase was issued to the'3rd respondent on 20-8-1977. even before O P. No 3136 of 1977 was filed on 23-8-1977 by the petitioner. The certificate of purchase issued as aforesaid bears patta No 15247 dated 20-8-1977 as averred by the petitioners in O. P. No. 34)6 of 1980, an averment which is not disputed. even before O P. No 3136 of 1977 was filed on 23-8-1977 by the petitioner. The certificate of purchase issued as aforesaid bears patta No 15247 dated 20-8-1977 as averred by the petitioners in O. P. No. 34)6 of 1980, an averment which is not disputed. Under these circumstances we are not prepared to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the order on the purchase application was not in force in view of the dismissal of the appeal, A. A. No. 1255 of 1971, with the observation that the same is subject to the result of the shifting application. Mark, that the dismissal of such an appeal was not on merits Presumably, such dismissal was made subject to the result of the shifting application, because the said decision was made as early as on 11-7-72. at which time, as per the provisions as they stood then, a shifting application could be entertained, till the certificate of purchase is issued under S.80C of the Act. We do not think that there is any merit in the contention advanced as aforesaid. It is on such a contention that these cases have been referred by the learned Single Judge for decision by a Division Bench. 14. In the result, we allow O. P. No. 3416 of 1980 and set aside Ext. P2 judgment therein in A. A. No. 3094 of 1978 whereby the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Cannanore, the second respondent in that writ petition, setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal, the 3rd respondent in that writ petition, in O.A. No.13773 of 1976 marked as Ext. P1 in that case, and as Ext. P2 in O P. 3136 of 1977, remanded the same to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal and restore the Land Tribunal's order in O A. No. 13773 of 1976, Ext PI in O P. No. 3416 of 1980, which is the same as Ext. P2 in O. P No 3136 of 1977. Consequently O. P No 3136 of 1977 is dismissed and O. P. No. 3416 of 1980 is allowed, but in the circumstances of the case, without any order as regards costs in both the cases.