K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The impugned order in the Civil Revision Petition is one passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal filed by one Adichathu Kunhiraman. Adichathu Kunhiraman, had obtained Purchase Certificate with respect to 3 acres 4 cents in suo-motu proceedings O.A. No. 3591/75 of Land Tribunal, Irikkur. The properties were situated in R.S No. 30/1A of Chooliyad desom. Kunhiraman contended that, though 3 acres 4cents were mentioned in the Purchase Certificate, he had, in his possession, about 5 acres 60 cents. That question does not arise for consideration here nor does the consideration of the Civil Revision Petition turn on this aspect.

2. Kunhiraman's brother, Othenan applied before the Land Tribunal, Payyannur and obtained an order with respect to 1.18 acres in the very same survey number. Kunhiraman was not aware of the same and on coming to know of it, filed an appeal with delay. The delay was condoned and appeal was taken to the files. While the appeal was pending, a compromise was filed which indicated that Kunhiraman had affixed his thumb impression and Othenan, his signature. The Appellate Authority accepted the compromise and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration "in accordance with law" and after issuing notice to the parties. The compromise petition was also sent to the Land Tribunal.

3. Before the Land Tribunal Kunhiraman raised a dispute with respect to the compromise. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that, the dispute was only with respect to the absence of the signature of the land owner. I am unable to accept such a contention because, the Land Tribunal No. II, Payyannur which considered the issue on remand, noticed that "The contestant respondent no.2 strongly challenge the existence of compromise petition". However, the Land Tribunal failed to consider the dispute raised by Kunhiraman and the specific prayer to ignore the terms of the compromise. On the mere statement that there was no reason to distrust the compromise petition, the Land Tribunal refused to consider the challenge against the compromise.

4. I have heard Sri B Premnath, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and learned counsel Sri. M Sasindran for the first respondent.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the only provision which enables a compromise as per the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the ACT") is Section 72MM. The procedure for recording a compromise as provided in the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable. Section 101 of the KLR Act specifically confers the powers of a Civil Court under the CPC only in respect of the specified matters therein. The power of a court to record the compromise being not specified, the power under CPC cannot be exercised in the matter of recording of compromise either by the Land Tribunal or by the Appellate Authority, is the contention of the learned counsel. The learned counsel also places before me, two decisions of this court reported in Thommy Ouseph v. Iype Paily & others, 1973 KLT 133 and State of Kerala v. Joseph Abraham, 1988 (1)KLT 81, to buttress his contention.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent however, would contend that Section 102(3) of the KLR Act provides for the Appellate Authority to exercise all powers which a court has under the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the Appellate Authority ought to be understood as having the powers under the Civil Procedure Code, with specific reference to Order 23 Rule 3. That is to say, it could record the compromise filed by the parties. It is also contended that there is no challenge to the first order of the Appellate Authority wherein the compromise was recorded, and hence the revision petitioner is estopped in raising any contention against the compromise.

7. At the outset, the contention of the respondent with respect to no challenge having been raised against the Appellate Aut