The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate authority did not have the power to remand the case to the Tahsildar, as the statute and rules did not intend to vest in the appellate authority a power of remand.

V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.

The short question that arises for decision in this writ appeal is whether the Revenue Divisional Officer, while disposing of an appeal preferred before him under sub-section (4) of S.29 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act) against an order passed by the Tahsildar preparing the record of rights in respect of a land, has the power to remand the case to the Tahsildar for fresh disposal The learned single Judge was of opinion that in view of the specific provisions contained in sub-section (6) of S.29 and sub-rule (3) of R.28 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, a power of remand is not vested in the Appellate Authority, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, and accordingly the learned Judge allowed the writ petition, out of which this writ appeal arises, and quashed the order Ext. P2 dated 26-12-1974 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengannur remanding the case to the Tahsildar for fresh disposal after examination of certain additional witnesses. The 1st respondent in the writ petition is the appellant before us and it is contended by her that the aforesaid view taken by the learned single Judge is not correct

2. Sub-section (1) of S.29 of the Act provides that any person interested in any land may at any time within 10 years from the commencement of the Act or such further period as the Government may by notification in the Gazette specify in that behalf, apply to the Tahsildar of the taluk in which any land is situated for the preparation of a record of rights in respect of that land. Sub-section (2) states that on receipt of an application under sub-section (1) the Tahsildar snail prepare the record of rights in respect of the concerned land in such manner as may be prescribed. What the record of rights should contain is enumerated in sub-section (3). Thereafter it is provided by sub-section (4) that any person aggrieved by any entry in the record of rights prepared by the Tahsildar under sub-section (2) may, within such period as may be prescribed, appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction over the area in which the land is situate. It is stated in sub-s.(5) that the appeal aforementioned shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. Then we come to sub-section (6), which being of special relevance requires to be extracted in full:

"On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (4), the Revenue Divisional Officer shall, after giving an opportunity to all persons interested in the land to which the record of rights relates, dispose of the appeal in such manner as may be prescribed".

The manner of disposing of the appeal having been thus left by the statute to be prescribed by the rules, we shall now turn to the relevant provisions contained in the Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules. R.27 deals with appeals against record of rights. Sub-rule (1) states that an appeal by a person aggrieved by any entry in the record of rights prepared by the Tahsildar shall be filed within thirty days from the date of communication to him of the record of rights. Sub-rule (2) says that the appeal shall be filed in Form No.11 and shall be accompanied by the original order or an attested copy of the record of rights. R.28 has the heading "Disposal of appeal against records of rights" and that rule reads:

"(1) On receipt of the memorandum of appeal, the Revenue Divisional Officer. after sending for the record of the case if he thinks fit so to do, and after fixing a day for hearing the appellant and hearing him accordingly if he appears on that day and after perusal of the memorandum of appeal and the record of the case, where it has been sent for, may, if he satisfied that there is no sufficient ground for interference or if he has reason to believe that the appellant is not aggrieved, dismiss the appeal forthwith.

(2) Where the Revenue Divisional Officer does not under sub-rule (i) dismiss the appeal, he shall fix a day for heari