Judgment :- 1. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the landholder, who requires shifting of kudikidappu under S.75 (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act can offer alternate site belonging to another. 2. S.75 of the Act provides that no kudikidappukaran shall be liable to be evicted from his kudikidappu except on specified grounds. S.75 (2) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) the landholder can evict his kudikidappukaran if be bonafide requires the land for constructing a building for his own residence or for the residence of any member of his family including major sons and daughters or for purposes in connection with a town planning scheme approved by the competent authority or for any industrial purpose. Under aforesaid circumstances the landholder can require the kudikidappukaran to shift to a new site belonging to him subject to certain conditions. The conditions are that the landholder shall pay to the kudikidappukaran the price of the homestead, if any, erected by the kudikidappukaran that the new site shall befit for erecting a homestead and shall be within a distance of one mile from the existing kudikidappu, that the extent of new site shall be the extent of the existing kudikidappu subject to a minimum of three cents if within the limits of a city or a major municipality, five cents if within the limits of any other municipality and ten cents if in any panchayat area or township and that the landholder shall transfer ownership and possession of the new site to the kudikidappukaran and shall pay to him the reasonable cost of shifting the kudikidappu to the new site. Where the above conditions are complied with, the kudikidappukaran is bound to shift to the new site. A reading of S.75 (2) would clearly show that all the conditions should be satisfied and only then a landholder can succeed in this application under S.75 (2) of the Act. 3. Contention of the revision petitioner is that the alternate site offered belongs to his father and therefore there will not arise any difficulty whatsoever in so far as the kudikidappukaran is concerned with regard to the alternate site offered. The answer to the question raised cannot be in the affirmative as S.75 (3) envisages that the new site offered to the kudikidappukaran must belong to the landholder. The answer to the question raised cannot be in the affirmative as S.75 (3) envisages that the new site offered to the kudikidappukaran must belong to the landholder. If that condition is not satisfied, a landholder cannot require the kudikidappukaran to shift to the new site offered to him. A reading of S.75(2) would show that the offer of new site belonging to the landholder is a condition precedent to the application. The mandate of the section cannot be diluted by holding that there is every possibility or likelihood of the kudikidappukaran getting the alternate site offered without any hindrance as it belongs to the landholder's father. 4. One of the conditions stipulated under S.75(2) is that the land-bolder shall transfer ownership and possession of the new site to the kudikidappukaran. Obviously it would not be possible for a landholder to transfer ownership and possession of the new site to the kudikidappukaran if be does not have any legal right over the same. In otherwords, the land-bolder must be capable of legally transferring ownership and possession of the new site to the kudikidappukaran. If the landholder is not in a position to do so, he cannot successfully maintain his application under S.75 (2). If a landholder wants the kudikidappukaran to shift to a new site in which he has no legal right to transfer ownership and possession, the Land Tribunal cannot allow hi? petition. In 1980 KLT 155 Pathumma v. Land Tribunal it was held by this Court that a landholder who is a co-owner of the alternate site cannot offer it to shift the kudikidappu. In 1975 KLT 284 Gopalan v. Oommen it has been held that the offer of new site belonging to the landholder is a condition precedent for application under S.75(2). 5. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the second revision petitioner's father (first revision petitioner) died during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition and consequently be obtained full rights in the alternate site and so the condition regarding alternate site has been satisfied. Merely because the second revision petitioner obtained rights by devolution over the alternate site pending the proceedings, it cannot be held that the condition precedent that the alternate site offered should belong to the landholder has been complied with. Merely because the second revision petitioner obtained rights by devolution over the alternate site pending the proceedings, it cannot be held that the condition precedent that the alternate site offered should belong to the landholder has been complied with. The devolution has taken place long after the requisition by the landholder, long after the notice issued and long after the fifing of the application before the Land Tribunal. In Gopalan's case (1975 KLT 284) a Division Bench of this Court held that though Courts can in given circumstances take note of subsequent events, as has been laid down in numerous decisions, it will not be correct to apply those principles to a case falling under S.75 (2) and S.77 (1) of the Act as the offer of the new site belonging to the landholder is a condition precedent for approaching the Land Tribunal requiring the kudikidappukaran to shift to a site belonging to the landholder. The Court will not be justified in toning down the rigour of the provision and enlarging upon the rights of the landlord to enable him to apply for shifting of kudikidappu on his land to some other land belonging to some one else. 6. As the alternate site offered did not belong to the landholder at the time when he filed the application under S.75(2), the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority were justified in rejecting the petition. There is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition and hence toe same is dismissed with no order as to costs.