Ext.P2 order passed by the District Court, Trichur in C.M. Appeal No. 152 of 2000, whereby, Ext.P1 order passed by the Settlement Officer under the Kanam Tenancy Abolition Act, 1976 (Act in short), without hearing the respondent herein (who is stated aggrieved party/interested party) remanding the matter for fresh consideration is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner had filed an application before the Special Tahsildar, Trichur claiming possession and kanam right of the property comprised in survey No. 1053, which was considered and decided by the said authority in favour of the petitioner vide Ext.P1 dated 212.1998. The said order was challenged by the first respondent by preferring C.M. Appeal No. 152/2000 before the District Court along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the same. The District Court, however, found that the reasons stated for condoning the delay in filing the appeal were not satisfactory and hence the petition to condone the delay was dismissed, which, as a nature consequence, led to the dismissal of the appeal as well.

3. Met with the circumstances, the first respondent challenged the above proceedings by filing O.P. 6295 of 2003 before this Court. After hearing both the sides, this Court vide judgment dated 13.01.2005 held that an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner therein (first respondent herein) to have the matter considered on merits. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, the delay in filing the C.M. Appeal was condoned and the appeal was restored and the original petition was disposed of, directing the District Court to finalise the matter on merits within 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Based upon the above judgment, the matter was considered afresh by the court below leading to Ext.P2 verdict which is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge is mainly on two grounds; firstly, that the C.M. Appeal itself was not maintainable and secondly, that the learned District Judge ought not to have entered into the merits of the case, having chosen to remand the matter for fresh consideration by the Special Tahasildar which otherwise is likely to influence the decision making process to be pursued by the Special Tahasildar. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the appeal is very much maintainable in view of the specific stipulation in the statute and further, having the matter become final by virtue of the judgment passed by this Court in O.P. 6295 of 2003, giving appropriate direction to the District Court to finalize the Appeal on merits.

5. With regard to the question of maintainability, the learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the Ext.P1 order cannot be an order passed under Section 11 of the Kanam Tenancy Abolition Act and that it can only be regarded as an order under Section 16, under which circumstances the only remedy available to the first respondent could have been by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, particularly when the jurisdiction of civil court is barred under Section 26 of the Act. Referring to Section 9 and 10 of the said Act, the learned counsel pointed out that the term used under sub Section 2 of Section 11 as to the right of appeal is only against "an" order of the settlement officer and not against any order. The learned counsel further submits that the particular order as contemplated under sub Section 2 of Section 11 is an order as envisaged under sub Section 1 of Section 11 i.e. with regard to an order passed under Section 10 as to the apportionment of an amount payable under sub Section 2 of the Section 4 among the persons entitled thereto which shall have the effect of a deemed decree of a civil court.

6. Section16 under Chapter III of the above Act specifically deals with the various aspects as to the Kanam advance of the amount paid to the Je