1. The petitioners challenge Ext. P2 order of the 2nd respondent, the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Ernakulam, confirming the finding of the 3rd respondent, the Land Tribunal in Ext. P1 to the effect that the 4th respondent is a cultivating tenant. The 2nd respondent, however, remanded the questions regarding fair rent and purchase price for fresh consideration by the Tribunal.

2. By Ext. P1 the Tribunal had found in O.A. No. 144 of 1975 that the 4th respondent was a cultivating tenant. That was a finding which was rendered by the Tribunal subsequent to Ext. P5 order of remand made by the 2nd respondent. In Ext. P5 the 2nd respondent had found that due opportunity was not given to the parties before the Tribunal came to a finding as to the status of the 4th respondent. Upon remand the Tribunal referred to the evidence of pws.1 to 3 and came to the conclusion that the 4th respondent was a cultivating tenant under one Raphael whose legal representatives are the petitioners. This finding was confirmed by the impugned order.

3. Two questions are urged before me by the petitioners' counsel. Counsel submits that in so far as the application on the basis of which an enquir