The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the tenants to deduct the 'marupattarn' amount from the purchase price and the fixation of compensation for kumki land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

1. I am hearing the two petitions together and disposing of the same by a common order, as it relates to the same holding. The petitioners in CRP. No. 1604 of 1977 are the tenants in respect of the property. The landlord's right in respect of which assignment is sought for has vested in the State oft 1st January 1970. Suo motu proceedings were initiated under S.72B(3) of -Act 1 of 1964. The Land Tribunal by its order, dated 23rd August 1973 held that the petitioners are cultivating tenants of the property and that they are entitled to apply for assignment of the land. The order of assignment was accordingly passed, where the purchase price was fixed at Rs 19,208.85. There was also direction there that a sum of Rs. 6,750 with interest thereon was to be deducted and the balance alone being payable to the landlords. But in Form I statement issued under sub-section (5) of S.72F of the Act, though the figure Rs. 19,208.85 was incorporated in the appropriate part (two places) the deduction of Rs. 6,750 was not made. Therefore the tenants filed appeal, A. A. 1787/1973 before the Appellate Authority seeking alteration and clarification on the above points. The Appellate Authority held that Rs.6,750 is liable to be deducted and the Form I statement had not been drawn up in accordance with the final order of the Land Tribunal. This mistake was directed to be corrected by the Land Tribunal showing the deduction, as ordered in para 8 of the final order so that the A party can know the correct amount they are to deposit. It might be noted that the appeal before the Appellate Authority had been heard along with A. A. No 2477 of 1973, filed by the landlords. In the final portion of the appellate order, by which both the appeals were disposed of, it had been said that A. A. No. 1787 of 1973 the tenants' appeal is also dismissed subject to the observation on the point in that appeal. In these circumstances the tenants have come up in revision to this court under S.103 of Kerala Land Reforms Act for clarifying the order, so that no mistake might further be repeated.

2. It is contended in the revision that the Appellate Authority having held that the petitioners, the tenants, are entitled to deduct the 'marupattarn' amount of Rs. 6,750 from Rs. 19,208.85 and liable to pay only the balance, ought to have allowed the. appeal and given appropriate direction to the Land Tribunal to make the necessary corrections where ever the figure Rs. 19,208.85 appeared.

3. One of the contentions which the landlords had taken up in the proceedings for fixation of purchase price was that R. S. No. 721-1A was a kumki land appertaining to R. S.721-2 and 3 and the same had been in the possession of the landlords and their predecessors-in-interest from time immemorial and all the improvements standing thereon have been effected by them. The lease took in that also. The tenants were enjoying the improvements in R.S. No. 721-1A: as part and parcel of the lease-hold property and the said survey number is specifically included in the lease deed. They also contended that the State had lost its title to that survey number by long possession of the petitioners' (in C.R P. 3756 of 1977) and their predecessors-in-interest as well as by their lessees. Therefore the landlord's right thereto was absolute. On this basis it is contended that in fixing the compensation the value of improvements in the kumki land should also be taken into account. However this contention was not accepted. The Land Tribunal did not order assignment of R. S. No. 721-1A to the tenants nor was compensation fixed for the same. The Appellate Authority concurred with the Land Tribunal's order. According to the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority the landlords had no jenmom right over the same, which is really Government land. Therefore on Ist January 1970 the right could not be said to have vested in the Government as per the Act. Therefore there cannot be an order allowing purchase of two a