ORDER M. M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Revision petitioners challenge the judgment of the Appellate Authority(Land Reforms), Cannanore in A. A. 4169 of 1978 confirming the order of theLand Tribunal No.I, Tellicherry in O.A 169 of 1973. Respondents 1 to 4 filedO.A 169 of 1973 under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Land Tribunalallowed the original application rejecting the contention of the revisionpetitioners that the O. A. is barred by res judicata in view of the decision in O.A432 of 1972. Contention that the first respondent has other land in hispossession and on that sole score he is disentitled to claim kudikidappu rightsin the property was also found not tenable. Revision petitioners filed A. A 1178of 1973 against O.A 432 of 1972 which was filed earlier by the first respondentand others. AA 1179 of 1973 was filed against O.A 169 of 1973. A.A.1178 of1973 was dismissed and AA 1179 of 1973 was allowed and remanded. Afterremand, Land Tribunal allowed O.A 169 of 1973. That finding has beenconfirmed by the Appellate Authority. 2. Contention of the revision petitioners is that O.A 169 of 1973 should nothave been allowed by the Land Tribunal as O.A 432 of 1972 filed earlier wasdismissed on merits. That contention is not tenable as the Appellate Authorityin A.A.1178 of 1973 has vacated the findings of the Land Tribunal. 3. Next contention is that it is the first respondent who has executed a rentdeed in favour of the revision petitioners and so he alone can claimkudikidappu right and not respondents 2 to 4. As the first respondent hasexecuted rent deed and as he is alive, he alone can claim kudikidappubenefits and so long as that claim is there nobody else can prefer any claim.Respondents 2 to 4 are not entitled to claim kudikidappu benefits in theproperty as the entrustment is admittedly in favour of the first respondent. 4. Another contention of revision petitioners is that the first respondent ispossessed of other lands and therefore at any rate he cannot claimkudikidappu benefits. Before the Land Tribunal evidence was adduced toshow that the first respondent has 10 cents of land as evidenced by Ext.B1 inthe Karnataka State. Before this Court revision petitioners produced acertificate issued by the Tahsildar of Karnataka State as per C.M.P. 2900 of1991 to hold that the first respondent is in possession of property having anextent of 60 cents in Sy.No.114/64. Before this Court revision petitioners produced acertificate issued by the Tahsildar of Karnataka State as per C.M.P. 2900 of1991 to hold that the first respondent is in possession of property having anextent of 60 cents in Sy.No.114/64. Certificate shows that there is a thatchedhouse in the property. 5. Contention of the first respondent is that even if he is in possession of anyproperty in Karnataka State that would be hardly crucial as it is outside theKerala State. Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that under S.2(25)of the Land Reforms Act no differentiation is made with regard to a personhaving any other property in Kerala or outside. The benevolent object of thekudikidappu provisions under the Act is to enable hutment dwellers to get ahouse on their own and therefore contention that a person having anotherproperty with a residential house even if it is outside Kerala can neverthelessclaim kudikidappu benefits is untenable. If it be otherwise, a person havingvast extent of properties and mansions in the neighbouring State can claimkudikidappu within the State of Kerala on the ground that he has no otherproperty in the latter State. That would lead to a ridiculous position. LandReforms Act is not intended to confer unmerited benefits on undeserving persons. 6. Under S.2(25) "kudikidappukaran" means a person who has neither ahomestead nor any land exceeding in extent three cents in any city or majormunicipality or five cents in any other municipality or ten cents in anypanchayat area or township, in possession either as owner or as tenant, onwhich he could erect a homestead. Legislature in its wisdom has notcontemplated that kudikidappukaran having any land exceeding the prescribedlimits in major municipality, other municipality, panchayat area or townshipoutside the Kerala State can very well ignore it and claim benefits under S.80Bof the Land Reforms Act. So long as the Act does not say so it is not possibleto accept the contention that properties outside Kerala cannot be taken intoconsideration to decide the claim of kudikidappu benefits. Contention of therespondents that the Kerala Land Reforms Act has been enacted for having acomprehensive legislation relating to land reforms in Kerala and so the extentand nature of properties held by a person outside Kerala are of no relevancecannot be accepted. Contention of therespondents that the Kerala Land Reforms Act has been enacted for having acomprehensive legislation relating to land reforms in Kerala and so the extentand nature of properties held by a person outside Kerala are of no relevancecannot be accepted. A person claiming kudikidappu benefits, if found to be inpossession of any other land exceeding the specified extent as provided underS.2(25) on which he could erect a homestead, cannot raise a contention thatthe said land is outside Kerala State and hence it is totally immaterial.Possession of other property fit for erecting homestead though outside theKerala State cannot be just overlooked. Once it is found that first respondenthas other properties where he could erect a homestead or he has alreadyanother residential house, he cannot claim kudikidappu benefits under the Acton the plea that it is outside Kerala. 7. As the revision petitioners have produced document evidencing possessionof another property by the first respondent only before this Court, it hasbecome really necessary to remand the case to the Land Tribunal to considerthe relevancy of that document to decide the kudikidappu claim after hearingboth sides. 8. For the reasons stated above, judgment of the Appellate Authorityconfirming the order of the Land Tribunal is set aside and the case isremanded to the Land Tribunal for denovo consideration in accordance withlaw and in the light of the observations made in this order. The case isremanded for the limited purpose of considering the contention of the revisionpetitioners as to whether the first respondent could claim kudikidappu benefitsas he is in possession of another land. The Civil Revision Petition standsallowed with no order as to costs.