Judgment :- 1. The question for consideration in this petition is whether the preliminary order holding that the respondents are kudikidappukars and entitled to purchase land adjoining their kudikidappu is appealable or not. The status of respondents 1 and 2 was questioned by the revision petitioner when they filed application to purchase the kudikidappu and by the order appealed against the Land Tribunal decided that question in favour of the respondents. Appeals were filed before the Appellate Authority who held that the order is not appealable in view of the decision in Sankaran v. Kochukutty (1974 KLT 563). Since the correctness of the above decision was challenged the learned single judge who earlier heard this revision petition has referred it for being heard by a Bench. 2. The petitioner's counsel contended that S.80B(3) provides for passing more than one order and any order passed under S.80B is appealable under S.102 of the Land Reforms Act. S.80B(3) is in the following terms: "The Land Tribunal shall, after giving notice to the kudikidappukars in the land in which the kudikidappu is situate and other persons interested in the land and after such enquiry as may be prescribed, pass such orders on the application as it thinks fit." The procedure for enquiry contemplated by that sub-section is governed by the rules prescribed under the Act, namely the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970. R.77 to 89 relate to matters concerning the purchase of kudikidappu under S.80A to 80G. R.79 and 80 provide for filing an application in the form prescribed, particulars to be mentioned therein, procedure to be followed by the Land Tribunal on receipt of an application and the information which the person in possession of the land in which the kudikidappu is situate should furnish. He can be required by the Land Tribunal to file a written statement setting forth his contentions, and if he disputes the status of the applicant, R.81 requires the Land Tribunal to decide that dispute as a preliminary issue and record a finding on such issue. If the finding is against the applicant his application shall forthwith be dismissed. Otherwise a further enquiry should be held regarding the identity of the land allowed to be purchased and purchase price and a final order passed. If the finding is against the applicant his application shall forthwith be dismissed. Otherwise a further enquiry should be held regarding the identity of the land allowed to be purchased and purchase price and a final order passed. The respondent's Contention is that what is done at the initial stage is only to record a finding as regards the status and the finding does not amount to an order under S.80B (3). R.81 provides for a decision to be rendered on the status of the applicant if that is in dispute. By whatever name it is called it is a decision on which the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to allow an application to purchase depends. Once that is decided in favour of the applicant it settles his right and entitles him to purchase the land adjoining the kudikidappu. Even if he later refuses to pay the first instalment of the purchase price he will not lose his right as a kudikidappukaran (see S.80 C (3)). The order of the Tribunal holding him to be a kudikidappukaran shall not be questioned in a civil court (see S.125 (2)). So the person interested in the land will be very much affected by the decision on the question of status of the applicant. No doubt, this order will lead to another order allowing the application. An order allowing an application should specify the matters referred to in clauses (i) to (vi) of sub-section 4. It is not provided that the decision about the status of the applicant should be specified in the final order. The only additional particulars, over and above the particulars in clauses (i) to (v) to be specified are those provided for in R.85. R.86 also does not require this decision on the status to be included in the statement to be appended to the order. In other words the decision on the status is an independent one, no doubt preliminary, but none-the less an order under S.80 B. It settles a question finally so far as the Land Tribunal is concerned. It is not open to the Land Tribunal to reopen it at the final stage. In this regard it differs from an interlocutory order passed under R.92 which has been held to be not appealable (see Paul v. Chakki 1972 K. L. T. 437). It is not open to the Land Tribunal to reopen it at the final stage. In this regard it differs from an interlocutory order passed under R.92 which has been held to be not appealable (see Paul v. Chakki 1972 K. L. T. 437). It is, only a preliminary order just like a preliminary decree in a civil suit. Where a preliminary order and a final order are thus permitted any such order is an order under S.80 B. Sub-section (3) enables the Land Tribunal to pass "such orders on the application as it thinks fit". Other orders will also come under this sub-section. If a kudikidappukaran refuses to opt for the portion to be purchased by him on being required to purchase another portion of the land the application under S.80 B shall be dismissed. If the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a kudikidappukaran the application shall be dismissed. In all these cases the order is conclusive so far as Land Tribunal is concerned. The analogy of a finding on an issue in a civil suit not amounting to a decree will be inappropriate to the decision on the status of a Kudikidappukaran in view of the language used in S.80 B (3). The decision in Sankaran v. Kochukutty (1974 K. L. T. 563) was rendered in connection with a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. In deciding that petition an argument that there is an alternate remedy by way of an appeal against the order holding the applicant a kudikidappukaran, was rejected on the view that an order regarding the status of the applicant is not an order under S.80 B. With respect, we feel that the decision there, regarding the non-maintainability of an appeal against the preliminary order, cannot be sustained. When the Section provides for more than one order, any adjudication finally deciding the rights of parties will be an order under that section though the proceedings will not be complete by such an order. If it is otherwise, it must be open to the Tribunal when passing the final order to modify or alter the earlier order. That is not permitted by the rules or the section. Therefore, we hold that the preliminary order being an order under S 8CB is appealable under S.102 of the Act. 3. If it is otherwise, it must be open to the Tribunal when passing the final order to modify or alter the earlier order. That is not permitted by the rules or the section. Therefore, we hold that the preliminary order being an order under S 8CB is appealable under S.102 of the Act. 3. A more or less similar question arose in connection with an application for purchase of the landlord's rights. There the status of the applicant as a tenant was disputed. A decision was taken by the Land Tribunal as required by R.9 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules that the applicant is a tenant. In Chellappan v. Kalyani (1915 KLT 187) it was held by a Division Bench that that order, though preliminary in character, is an order coming under S.72(F) and appealable under S.102 of the Act. With respect, the reasoning in that case applies to the facts of this case as well. 4. Therefore, the decision in Sankaran v. Kochukutty (1974 KLT 563) on this point does not, with respect, lay the down the law correctly and we held that the order passed by the Land Tribunal on the question of status of the applicants is appealable. Thus the revision petition is allowed, the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the cases are sent back to that Appellate Authority for consideration of the appeals on their merits. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.