The main legal point established in the judgment is the criteria for determining a 'small holder' under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, emphasizing the extent of land in which the applicant has an interest as per the definition under S.2(52) of the Act.

1. This is a revision under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, for short, the Act, by respondents 1 and 2 in an application by the 1st counter-petitioner herein under S.15 and 17 of the Act for resumption. The Land Tribunal, Ernakulam after framing seven issues on the contentions raised by the revision petitioners allowed the application and granted resumption of an extent not exceeding one half of the holding. The location and actual extent of the land to be resumed as well as the rent payable by the 1st revision petitioner over the extent of the holding to be retained by him and the value of improvements to be paid if any, were directed to be determined in separate proceedings. The 1st counter-petitioner herein (the applicant) was permitted to take out a commission. Revision petitioners 1 and 2 appealed and contended that the 1st respondent was not a small holder. Revision petitioner 1 also contended that his kudiyirippu extended over the entire holding. The 2nd revision petitioner contended that she has a leasehold right over a portion of 22 cents of the holding. The appellate authority confirmed the findings of the Land Tribunal that the 1st respondent is a small holder and also held that the 2nd revision petitioner has not established that he is a tenant of any portion of the holding. On the other point raised by the 1st revision petitioner while finding that the Ist revision petitioner has kudiyirippu right in the holding, the finding entered by the Land Tribunal that this kudiyirippu will not extend beyond one half of the holding was vacated. It was also noticed that under the amended provision in the Act, the tenant has a right to opt for the portion of the property which he wishes to retain and that the value of improvements had also yet to be determined. The appellate authority therefore felt that the above questions required fresh enquiry by the Land Tribunal. It accordingly left open all these questions, namely the actual extent of the land occupied by the 1st appellant's kudiyirippu, the value of improvements to be paid and the portion of the holding to be retained by the 1st revision petitioner. The order concluded in these terms:

"In the result, I find thai the 1st respondent is a small holder entitled to resumption under S.17 and 22 of the Land Reforms Act and the question regarding the actual extent of property which he can resume and the value of improvements and other connected rights are left open to be decided by the Land Tribunal The Land Tribunal will decide those questions afresh. This appeal is disposed of accordingly."

2. In this revision petition, the contentions raised are that the 1st respondent is not a small holder, that the authorities went wrong in holding that the land of the applicant alone be taken into account in deciding whether he is a small holder and that the second revision petitioner should have been held to be a lessee in independent right in respect of 22 cents of land in the holding.

3. On behalf of the 1st counter-petitioner in this revision petition his counsel contended that this revision petition is not maintainable as the order sought to be revised is not a final order and so a revision under S.103 of the Act is not permissible. The relevant part of S.103 of the Act is in these terms:

"103. Revision by High Court: (1) Any person aggrieved by

(i) any final order passed in an appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal; or

(ii) may, within such time as may be prescribed, prefer a petition to the High Court against the order on the ground that the appellate authority or the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board as the case may be, has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law, or

(2) The High Court may, after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, pass such orders as it deems fit and the orders of the appellate authority or the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board as the case may be, shall, wherever necessary, be modified according