Judgment :- 1. This civil revision petition is by the landlord under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. Two points have been raised by his counsel. According to him the land in question is not a kole nilam as defined in S, 2 (24). That definition is in these terms: "(24) 'kole nilam' means land in the bed of any kayal, or lake, or any water-logged land in areas adjoining or lying within the vicinity of any kayal, lake or river, on which paddy is cultivated by raising bunds on one or more sides and draining the water away by mechanical or other means, and includes (i) kole or punjakole nilam in the districts of Palghat and Trichur; and (ii) water-logged land in the taluks of Hosdrug and Kasaragod commoaly known as 'Avi' land, on which paddy is cultivated by raising bunds on one or more sides and draining the water away by bailing;" 2. The other points raised are that in fixing the fair rent, the Land Tribunal as well as the appellate authority have relied on the statistics published under S.44 of the Act for the year 1963-1964 which was the statistics available at the time the application was moved in June 1964 and not the statistics that was available at the time of the decision, viz., that of 1965-1966. This, it is contended, is erroneous. 3. The argument as regards the first point raised turns on the construction of the definition which we have extracted. It is not disputed before us, and rightly we think that there was evidence available before the Tribunal to show that the land in question is situate in a larger area which is water logged and in which cultivation is effected by raising bunds and by pumping water out by mechanical means. In fact Pwl has specifically sworn to these facts. It is no doubt true that he had admitted in cross-examination that in the holding in question no bunds are erected ana that there is no need for it. On the basis of this admission counsel for the revision petitioner has urged that the holding is not a kole nilam as defined in S.2 (24). The argument is that every bit of land claimed to be a kole nilam must be cultivated (by erecting bunds around it and by pumping water by mechanical process. On the basis of this admission counsel for the revision petitioner has urged that the holding is not a kole nilam as defined in S.2 (24). The argument is that every bit of land claimed to be a kole nilam must be cultivated (by erecting bunds around it and by pumping water by mechanical process. We are unable to accept this argument. It seems to us that it is enough if the cultivation in the area in question is effected by raising bunds in the larger area. Every bit of land, situate within that area where cultivation is so effected will become part of a kole nilam. We therefore reject the first contention urged by counsel for the revision petitioner. 4. The relevant provisions so far as they are necessary for the purpose of dealing with the second argument are those contained in S.44 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act which merely states: "The Government shall cause to be published statistics of gross produce of different crops for different classes of land for different areas." and S.31 (3) which is in these terms: "In determining the fair rent under sub-section (2), the Land Tribunal may take into account the statistics published under S.44." These sections do not give any indication as to which statistics of the various 'statistics published under the Act before the determination of the question by the Land Tribunal should be taken into account for fixing the fair rent. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the statistics published before the decision namely, the one for the year 1965-1966 in this case should alone be taken into account for fix-ing the fair rent. Counsel for the tenant however, suggested that it is the one published before the date of the application that is the relevant one. He urged that by virtue of the provision in S.34 the fair rent will have to take effect from the beginning of the agricultural year in which the application for determination was made and this provision indicates that the question,. must be determined with reference to the state of affairs existing at that time. 5. We may in this connection refer to R.4 and 26 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1964. R.4 provides that the matters specified therein under clauses (a) to (f) may be taken into account for ascertaining the normal produce in respect of any land. must be determined with reference to the state of affairs existing at that time. 5. We may in this connection refer to R.4 and 26 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1964. R.4 provides that the matters specified therein under clauses (a) to (f) may be taken into account for ascertaining the normal produce in respect of any land. Clause (d) there provides: "(d) the statistics of gross produce published under S.44" Rule 26 enacts: "26. Publication of statistics of gross produce On the first of April every year, or as soon as may be thereafter, the Bureau of Economics & Statistics shall publish in the Gazette and at the taluk headquarters, statistics showing the gross produce per acre of the following crops in respect of each taluk, or district, as the case may be:-" Paddy is one of the crops mentioned in that rule and in accordance with this rule statistices, we are informed, is being published almost every year in relation to paddy. The case was decided by the Land Tribunal with reference to the statistics published on the 1st April, 1965. Since then there have been publication of statistics on the 1st April 1967. It was suggested by counsel for the respondent that S.44 contemplates the publication of only one set of statistics, And R.26 it was suggested is ultra vires of S.44. There is however no specific challenge made at any relevant time about the vires of R.26 and we do not think that we will be justified in considering this question. We therefore decline to express any opinion on this question. The Act read with the rules, we consider, provide that the statistics published under S.44 of the Act is a relevant material for the purpose of determining the fair rent. The Act does not either expressly or even by implication provide or indicate that any particular year's statistics is only relevant. We think all the statistics published in the gazette under S.44 before the date of decision is relevant material. From these statistics it may be possible for the Tribunal to come to the determination of fair rent payable in relation to the year mentioned in the absence of any other evidence. The fair rent fixed under the statute seems to be applicable for all time thereafter subject to the exemptions provided under S.39 of the Act. From these statistics it may be possible for the Tribunal to come to the determination of fair rent payable in relation to the year mentioned in the absence of any other evidence. The fair rent fixed under the statute seems to be applicable for all time thereafter subject to the exemptions provided under S.39 of the Act. These are very special circumstances falling under sub-section (2) of S.31. So the determination must be not on the basis of the accidental fluctuations in any particular year but on the entire data available before the Land Tribunal. This may indicate a trend. This not having been done, we are constrained to set aside the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the Land Tribunal in regard to this aspect and remit the case back to the Land Tribunal for appropriate decision in the light of the observations made in this judgment. We accordingly set aside both the orders and direct the Land Tribunal to decide the question of fair rent afresh. There will be no order as to costs, Allowed.