Judgment :- 1. The crucial question which arises in the revision petition filed in 1983 and in the second appeal filed in 1986 is the entitlement of the petitioner/ appellant to the benefits of a kudikidappukaran, as provided under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. That he was in occupation of a but for over three decades is borne out by the records including the report of the authorised officer. There was a vague contention about the house in which the kudikidappukaran was residing did not answer the description of a but as defined in the Act. That is not seen pursued before any of the authorities below. That is not permitted to be raised in the revisional/ second appellate stage. 3. The status of kudikidappu was denied solely on the ground that be was assigned one acre of land, in the course of the distribution of surplus land among the agricultural labourers under the scheme of the Act. According to the report of the authorised officer, the assigned plot was not plain land; it contained a few cashew plants; the distance to that plot from the existing kudikidappu by road was about nine kilometres. 4. S.75(1)(iv) is particularly relevant in this context. That section reads: 75. Kudikidappukaran to have fixity.-(1) No kudikidappukaran shall be liable to be evicted from his kudikidappu except on the following grounds, namely: x (iv) that be has another kudikidappu or has obtained ownership and possession of land which is for erecting a homestead within a distance of five kilometres from his kudikidappu;" Ss. 2(25) defining 'kudikidappukaran', S.2(40) defining 'owner', S.96 dealing with assignment of land by Land Board and the Ceiling Rules, particularly R.29 thereof are other relevant provisions. 5. The larger perspective of the land reforms legislation has also to be borne in mind The kudikidappukaran belongs to the class of persons, without a secured shelter on the earth; one who does not own a viable area of land on which he could erect a homestead. The Working Paper "Agrarian Reform in Kerala And Its Impact on the Rural Economy A Preliminary Assessment" by K. N. Raj and Michael Tharakan states that the landless households in the rural sector was estimated at 4 lakhs in 1961-62, and that the number of kudikidappukar households was 3.5 lakhs according to 1966-67 survey. The Working Paper "Agrarian Reform in Kerala And Its Impact on the Rural Economy A Preliminary Assessment" by K. N. Raj and Michael Tharakan states that the landless households in the rural sector was estimated at 4 lakhs in 1961-62, and that the number of kudikidappukar households was 3.5 lakhs according to 1966-67 survey. Legislature certainly was alive to the fact that this group belonged to the lowest section of the society, even socially. This is revealed from the studies undertaken in that behalf. As noted by the same working paper, most of them are members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes. 6. The present population, who had land to till but under precarious tenure, also received the needed attention of the progressive legislations. As a matter of fact, even fixation of fair rent, was viewed by some political thinkers as partaking of a socialistic transformation of the society. (See Rae's comment: "Professor Sidgwick declares the Irish and Scotch Land Acts, which provide for the judicial determination of a fair rent, to be the most distinctively socialistic measures which the English legislature has yet passed;" (Rae's Contemporary Socialism, Page 428)) 7. That a benevolent social legislation should receive a liberal interpretation which would promote its object, is now a well settled proposition. The observations of the Supreme Court in the context of a land reforms legislation as contained in State of Haryana v. Sampuran Singh, AIR. 1975 SC. 1952, are very apposite in this connection. It is unnecessary to load this judgment with references to other decisions reiterating that view. Even a departure from the plain meaning is permitted to give effect to the true intent of a legislation. (See M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons v. Balbir Nath, AIR. 1986 SC. 1499.) In a recent decision Skandia Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, AIR. 1987 SC. 1184. the Supreme Court deprecated a 'backward looking' approach in interpretational exercises. The statutory scheme has to be examined, and the relevant provisions interpreted, bearing these principles in mind. 8. The court can safely proceed on the basis that the Legislature did intend to promote the life and living conditions of the kudikidappukaran, (as Ronald J. Herring refers to in his book'Land to the Tillers') the littleman'. Protection from eviction was a needed safeguard. Not merely that. 8. The court can safely proceed on the basis that the Legislature did intend to promote the life and living conditions of the kudikidappukaran, (as Ronald J. Herring refers to in his book'Land to the Tillers') the littleman'. Protection from eviction was a needed safeguard. Not merely that. He should even be allowed to purchase that small patch of land, 3 cents, 5 cents or 10 cents depending upon the location in urban, semi-urban or rural background. A but to live in, a little space to move around, is substantial gain for the man, who had only the sky above as his roof, and an unending search for fresh habitat when driven away from the existing one by the land owner. Substantial as these advantages were, they were not to be the be-all and end-all of the statutory bounties. He was rightly considered entitled to the beneficent distribution scheme in relation to the surplus land consequent on the implementation of the ceiling provisions. That was what S.96 specifically provided. By a statutory fiction as it were, a kudikidappukaran was brought within the definition of 'landless labour', so that he could be considered for the assignment of land as visualised under S.96. If the distributed land is one in which a kudikidappukaran resides, the kudikidappukaran was entitled to a priority in the assignment. Only the residue of the land could be assigned among other landless agricultural labourers, and small holders and other landless who are not entitled to resume any land. Explanation to that section made a kudikidappukaran to be deemed a landless agricultural labourer, if be did not possess any other land. The kudikidappukaran, under clause (b) of that Explanation, included "a person who was a kudikidappukaran to whom a certificate of purchase has been issued under subsection (2) of S.80C." One other feature to be noted is that even a small-holder, would be a possible beneficiary under the distribution scheme. This also is not without significance in understanding the scope and ambit of S.75(1)(iv). 9. S.75(1) contains a prohibition of eviction of a kudikidappukaran from his kudikidappu. Exceptions are engrafted thereafter. This also is not without significance in understanding the scope and ambit of S.75(1)(iv). 9. S.75(1) contains a prohibition of eviction of a kudikidappukaran from his kudikidappu. Exceptions are engrafted thereafter. Alienation of the right of kudikidappu as referred to in clause (1), leasing out of the entire kudikidappu for a period of not less than 2 years, ceasing to reside in the kudikidappu continuously for a like period, or having another kudikidappu or obtaining ownership and possession of land which is fit for erecting a homestead within a distance of five kilometres from his kudikidappu, are those exceptional provisions. Two provisos have been engrafted to clause (iv). Even if he obtains ownership and possession of land, it will not adversely affect his immunity from eviction, if it is of a smaller area, less than three cents in a city, or five cents in a municipality or ten cents in a Panchayat. If, however, he has ownership and possession of land not less than 25 cents, he would forfeit his protection from eviction. 10. The practical aspects of life will have necessarily to be borne in mind in that context. The place where one is born and brought up, or where one has his occupational connections and even indispensable natural advantages connected with the occupation (such as the site by the side of the sea, the backwaters, rivers or lagoons, where a kudikidappukaran is a fisherman eking out his livelihood from his fishing operations) are matters vital for a safe and secure enjoyment of kudikidappu consistent with other activities necessary to sustain his living. 11. The nature and character of the surplus land would depend upon a variety of factors. It can be a waste land or comparatively unproductive. It can be a rocky area in an elevated place, or a marshy one in submersible surroundings. May be, by long years of effort, some yield and some income could be expected from those lands. It cannot be assumed that the Legislature intended an uprooting of a kudikidappukaran from his existing kudikidappu by giving him some small parcel of land in the distribution process of the surplus land. The distribution of surplus land to a kudikidappukaran cannot ordinarily deprive him of a benefit consciously given by the Legislature in the form of protection from eviction under S.75. 12. The rules framed under S.96, would confirm this assumption. The distribution of surplus land to a kudikidappukaran cannot ordinarily deprive him of a benefit consciously given by the Legislature in the form of protection from eviction under S.75. 12. The rules framed under S.96, would confirm this assumption. In order to lose his immunity from protection, kudikidappukaran must have ownership and possession of another parcel of land as described in the statutory provisions. The term'ownership' is very significant in that context. The term has to be understood in the light of the definition in S.2(40) as meaning a person entitled to the absolute proprietorship of land. This emphasis on absolute proprietorship cannot be missed, while understanding the statutory scheme. 13. An examination of R.29 of the Ceiling Rules dealing with the distribution of surplus land may now be made. Lands assigned under S.96 are heritable but are not alienable for specified periods as included in R.29(1). The inalienability continues for a period of 12 years from the date of assignment. It also subsists for such period during which the charge created under S.97(3) (in relation to the purchase price payable for the assigned land) subsists. Again in relation to the dealings with such a land, there are serious inhibitions. A mortgage of such a land is permitted only with a limited class of organisations the Government, a co-operative society, the Coffee Board, the Rubber Board or other financing institutions recognised by the Government in that behalf. The purposes for which such mortgage can be created are also circumscribed. Even mortgages in favour of those specified institutions can be made only for obtaining loans for agricultural or land improvement purposes or for house construction activities as indicated therein. Sub-rule (5) contains further restrictions even in the use of the assigned land. The assigned land can be used for purposes of residence or persona! cultivation, only if the land assigned is used for purposes of residence in the former case or purposes of cultivation in the latter. A different mode of use is possible only on obtaining the permission in that behalf from the Collector. These provisions make it abundantly clear that an assignment of the land under the scheme of S.96 and as provided under R.29, would not clothe an assignee with absolute proprietorship of the land as understood in law. A different mode of use is possible only on obtaining the permission in that behalf from the Collector. These provisions make it abundantly clear that an assignment of the land under the scheme of S.96 and as provided under R.29, would not clothe an assignee with absolute proprietorship of the land as understood in law. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that he has obtained ownership and possession of the land, so as to be cast off from the sheltering shore of S.75(1)(iv). 14. The term 'ownership' has been subjected to judicial interpretation, though in different context. One such case is R.B.J.M. Kuthiala v. I.T. Commr. Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 126. About the attributes of ownership and "belonging", a Full Bench of this Court had discussed in the decision, M/s. Parthas Trust v. CIT, Trivandrum, (ITR. Nos. 20, 233 to 235 and 268/ 1981: 1987 (2) KLT 485). The guidelines available from those decisions also would buttress the interpretation of the section as given above. 15. The result of the discussion is to hold that a kudikidappukaran, who had had the benefits of an assignment under the distribution scheme in relation to the surplus land under the Land Reforms Act does not, for that reason, cease to be a kudikidappukaran entitled to immunity from eviction under S.75. 16. In the light of the above conclusion, the contrary view come to by the authorities and the courts below have to be vacated. I do so. The revision petition and the second appeal will stand allowed. The revision petitioner/ second appellant will be entitled to the purchase of kudikidappu for which he had made the application. 17. Having regard to the circumstances, I do not make any order as to costs, either in the appeal or in the revision. 18. The question involved in the case is important, viewed from many angles. It was a question of cardinal importance to a large number of kudikidappukars in the State. The legal provisions concerning the kudikidappukaran, starting from S.75 and ending with S.80C as contained in Chap.2 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, cannot claim much of lucidity. 18. The question involved in the case is important, viewed from many angles. It was a question of cardinal importance to a large number of kudikidappukars in the State. The legal provisions concerning the kudikidappukaran, starting from S.75 and ending with S.80C as contained in Chap.2 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, cannot claim much of lucidity. This is understandable, particularly in the light of various amendments necessitated to meet the requirements of altered conditions including those brought about by judicial decisions which according to the Legislature, were at variance with the true but imperfectly expressed intent of the Legislature. It may not be possible for a handicapped kudikidappukaran to effectively fight a costly litigation, particularly when it reaches the final stage of the revision in the High Court. The Legislature was apparently conscious about that difficulty. A decision of the High Court would be binding on subordinate courts and other authorities, and as such would have effect and impact on other kudikidappukars having similar problems even when they are not parties to the particular case disposed of, The mighty arm of the State, and its adequate resources, are harnessed for the protection of this class of weaklings of the society, by ensuring that the State will always be on the party array in all the revision petitions filed before the High Court. This was done by incorporating S.103(1A) by Act 17 of 1972. 19. It is, however, quite often the experience of this Court that the purpose intended by the aforesaid section, is seldom served, due to absence of effective assistance from the side of the State. The hearing of the case was adjourned many times. It was adjourned even when it had been partly heard, to enable the State legal mechanism to afford assistance to the court. I regret that I did not have that assistance in this case also. It is time that this attitude is changed, so that the purpose of the amendatory exercise made by the Legislature when it enacted Act 17 of 1972 is properly fulfilled.