The interpretation of 'final order' under S.103(1) of the Act and the wide revision power of the High Court in the interest of justice and proper adjudication of disputes.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order of the High Court of Kerala dated 29th November, 1996 in CRP No. 2495 of 1989. The said revision petition was filed by the respondent herein under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the judgment dated 31.1.1989 of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Thrissur in AA No. 93/88. The High Court having allowed the revision petition on the finding that the respondent therein is not a kudikidappukaran with respect to the structure in question. The respondent in the revision petition has filed this appeal.

2. The relevant facts necessary for appreciating the controversy may be stated thus:

The respondent Hari Mohan owns an extent of 28.5 cents of property in Survey No. 683/3 of Lokamaleswaram village. In that property there is a building with four sets of rooms originally constructed as shop rooms. The said four rooms were separately let out to four persons including the appellant. All the four tennats filed original applications before the Land Tribunal for purchase of kudikidappu right under

S.80-B of the Act. The application filed by the appellant was registered as O.A. No. 580 of 1973. All the applications were dismissed by Land Tribunal, Kodungalloor. Excepting the appellant the other tenants did not pursue the matter further. The appellant filed A.A. No. 715/76 before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Trichur which was allowed holding that the appellant is a kudikidappukaran entitled to purchase the kudikidappu. The said order was challenged by the respondent in C.R.P. 2718/77 which was allowed by the High Court by Order dated 25.4.1980; the order of the Appellate Authority was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh disposal with the following observations:

"For determining this question several factors will have to be taken into account- the distance between the building and the structure, the object for which and the circumstances under which the structure was allowed to be constructed, whether it was free or subject to the payment of rent, the existence of similar structures executed by the other tenants in the building, and other relevant circumstances. The Appellate Authority has not considered these various factors but has gone only by the distance of about 3/4 kole which separates the structure from the building. After hearing both sides I am of the view that this omission has vitiated the order. The Appellate Authority has therefore to be required to consider the matter again".

3. After the remand, the Appellate Authority passed an order in favour of the appellant. The relevant portion of the order reads:

"It is seen that it is a separate building which has no connection with the main building, as observed by the Appellate Authority earlier that there is about 3/4 kole distance between the structure and the building. It has also been stated that the applicant was permitted to reside with his family when his wife had to undergo treatment. It has been pointed out that rent was paid for the structure and that the rent paid for the main building included that of the charthu also. It is an admitted fact that the charthu has been constructed by the appellant. Therefore, I do not find any reason to believe that it is not an independent hut. It was argued that the property in question lies within the local limits of Kodungalloor Municipality. The Land Tribunal, will consider this question also when the area of kudikidappu is fixed.

In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the Land Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the lower Court for granting kudikidappu right to the appellant in the light of the directions given above".

4. The above order was not challenged in revision. The Land Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to 10 cents of land as kudikidappu and the certificate of purchase with respect to 7.73 cents which was the only avail