Judgment :- The petitioner made an application O. A. No. 874/ 70 before the Land Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, under S.80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for purchase of kudikidappu. The 1st respondent before me is the owner of the land on which the kudikidappu is situate. On the finding that the petitioner is a kudikidappukaran and that the building is a hut within the meaning of the Act, the Land Tribunal allowed the application by order dated 21-4-1972. The order re-ids as follows: "The applicant has applied for the purchase of kudikidappu under S.80-B of the K.LR. Act. Notices were issued to the parties also. The applicant was present when the case was taken up for hearing. On perusal of the records it is seen that the respondents have not put forth any valid objections to the kudikidappu right of the applicant. The applicant is therefore declared as a kudikidappukars. She is eligible to purchase kudikidappu to the extent of 5 cents in survey No. 188/IOA of the Chenkal Village Neyyattinkara Taluk which is within the Neyyattinkara Municipality. The statement of particulars required as per Rule 86 of the tenancy rules is furnished separately." Thereafter on 17-5-1973, the 2nd respondent before me made an application before the Land Tribunal to be impleaded as supplemental applicant and for the issue of the certificate of purchase in the joint names of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. On this application, there is an office-note as follows: "Please see the report of the R. I. In the circumstances reported by the R. I. the pending case No. 864/72 may be struck off from the file and the patta in case No. 874/70 may be jointly issued in the names of Krtpa Ponnu and Yovan Pathrose". It may be noted that the application by the petitioner before the Land Tribunal was O. A. 874/70, and it would appear that a similar application was later tiled by the 2nd respondent Yovan Pathrose as 0 A No. 864/ 72, There is an order by the Land Tribunal on the application for impleadment of the 2nd respondent as follows: 'Issue joint patta impleading Yovan Pathrose and struck off case No. 864/72. (Sd.) 29—5 -1973." In pursuance to this order the Land Tribunal has added the name of the 2nd respondent in the order it had passed on 21-4-1972 for the issue of a certificate of purchase to the petitioner. The order of the Land Tribunal as it stands at present shows that there are two applicants. The name of the 2nd respondent is shown as second applicant "impleaded as 2nd applicant as per order dated 29-5-1973". The application for impleadment filed by the 2nd respondent this itself long after the Land Tribunal had passed orders for the issue of a certificate of purchase to the petitioner. No notice of the application for impleadment is seen given to the petitioner who was the sole applicant before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal after having passed final orders in O. A. No. 874 of 1970 on 21-4-1972 has no jurisdiction to alter the order by adding the second respondent as the second applicant and directing the issue of the certificate of purchase in the joint names of the applicants. In pursuance to the order impleading the 2nd respondent, a certificate of purchase in the joint names of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was issued by the Land Tribunal. When the petitioner noticed that the certificate of purchase was issued in the joint names of herself and the 2nd respondent, she filed an appeal to the Land Board, Trivandrum. The Land Board gave a reply stating that it has no jurisdiction to correct the mistake committed by the Land Tribunal, and directing the petitioner to file an appeal to the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, an appeal was filed with a petition to condone the delay in presenting the appeal in trine. The Appellate Authority rejected the application for condoning the delay, and m consequence the appeal itself was dismissed It is against this that the petitioner has come up in revision before this Court. Accordingly, an appeal was filed with a petition to condone the delay in presenting the appeal in trine. The Appellate Authority rejected the application for condoning the delay, and m consequence the appeal itself was dismissed It is against this that the petitioner has come up in revision before this Court. 2 After the case was disposed of by the Land Tribunal on 21-4-1972, it had no jurisdiction to implead the 2nd respondent as an additional applicant before it and direct the issue of a certificate of purchase in the joint names of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent The 2nd respondent's application for impleading as supplemental 2nd applicant is itself seen filed after the case had been disposed of The order of the Land Tribunal to implead the 2nd respondent as the 2nd applicant and for the issue of a certificate of purchase in the joint names of both the persons is passed without even issuing a notice to the petitioner who was the sole applicant before the Land Tribunal and on whose application there was already a final order for the issue of a certificate of purchase to her The Land Tribunal has acted without jurisdiction in impleading the 2nd respondent. S.101 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act provides that the Land Board and the Land Tribunal shall have all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, I 08, in respect of the matters specified therein. Impleadment of additional parties is not a matter among those enumerated in the Section. The Section provides that such powers as is mentioned in sub-section (1) shall extend to any other matter which may be prescribed. The only other matter prescribed is contained in Rule 92 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules Rule 92 also does not empower the Land Tribunal to implead additional parties except as regards legal representatives of a deceased party in proceedings before it The Land Tribunal is a statutory Tribunal constituted under S.99 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and its powers and jurisdiction are confined to those conferred on it by the Act, and the Rules issued thereunder. Even assuming that Land Tribunals have jurisdiction to implead additional parties, the procedure adopted by the Land Tribunal in the present case is clearly beyond its powers. Even assuming that Land Tribunals have jurisdiction to implead additional parties, the procedure adopted by the Land Tribunal in the present case is clearly beyond its powers. Once it has pronounced final orders in a matter, brought up before it, being a judicial Tribunal, it has no jurisdiction to add parties to share the benefits of the order passed in favour of the applicant before it. The impugned order directing the issue of a certificate of purchase in the joint names of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent cannot be allowed to stand. 3 S.80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act provides that a kudikidappukaran entitled to purchase the kudikidappu under S.80-A shall apply to the Land Tribunal for such purchase. Sub-section (2) states that the application shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. Sub-section (3) provides that 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 deems fit. Sub-section (4) provides for the particulars to be contained in an order of the Load Tribunal under sub-section (3). Sub-section (3) requires the Land Tribunal to issue notice to persons interested in the land before an order is passed on an application for purchase of kudikidappu, submitted by the kudikidappukaran. Notice to interested parties is a statutory requirement, whether or not all the persons interested are impleaded as parties to the application. But such notice to persons interested should be given before orders are passed on the application under sub-section 1 of S.80-B The Land Tribunal in the course of the enquiry may come to know of persons interested, other than those impleaded as parties to the application. In such cases also the Land Tribunal is required to issue notice to such persons interested, and pass final orders after hearing also those interested. The provisions of S.80-B do not confer jurisdiction on the Land Tribunal to implead a third party after the disposal of the application under sub-section (1) of S.80-B submitted by the kudikidappukaran. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 79 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules states that the application under sub-section (1) of S.80-B shall be in form No 41. The provisions of S.80-B do not confer jurisdiction on the Land Tribunal to implead a third party after the disposal of the application under sub-section (1) of S.80-B submitted by the kudikidappukaran. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 79 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules states that the application under sub-section (1) of S.80-B shall be in form No 41. Sub-rule (2) enjoins the Land Tribunal to issue notice of such application in Form No. 42 to the person in possession of the land, in which the kudikidappu is situate, the land owner and the intermediaries if any in respect of such land, the holder of encumbrance, if any, charged on the right, title and interest of the land owner or the intermediaries or the person in possession of such land, the person if any entitled to maintenance or alimony charged on such right, title and interest and other kudikidappukars, if any, in such land and where the hut belongs to any person other than the land owner, intermediary or person in possession of the land, to such person also. Sub-rule (3) requires a copy of the notice to be published on the Notice Boards of the Office of the Land Tribunal, the Village Office and the Office of the local authority within whose jurisdiction the kudikidappu is situate. The notices under Rule 79 are to be issued before an order is passed under S.80-B(3) of the Act. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules empowering the Land Tribunal to implead a third party as an additional applicant, after it had passed final orders for this assignment of the right title and interest of the land owner to the applicant. The Land Tribunal is a statutory Tribunal established under the Kerala Land Reforms Act Its powers and jurisdiction are circumscribed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The order of the Land Tribunal in this case impleading the 2nd respondent as an additional applicant after it had passed final orders on the application submitted by the petitioner is clearly without jurisdiction and is beyond the powers of the Tribunal under the Act and the Rules. 4. S.102 of the Act provides for an appeal to the Appellate Authority against any order of the Land Tribunal passed under S.80-B of the Act. 4. S.102 of the Act provides for an appeal to the Appellate Authority against any order of the Land Tribunal passed under S.80-B of the Act. The Appellate Authority had therefore a duty to set right the gross illegality committed by the Land Tribunal. The Appellate Authority is wrong when it states that there is long delay from 1970 to 1974. The order in favour of the petitioner for purchase of kudikidappu was passed by the Land Tribunal on 21-4— 72 The petitioner had no reason to thiruk that after final orders had been passed by the Land Tribunal, some other person will be superadded as an applicant to share the benefits of the certificate of purchase that was ordered to be issued in her favour An order to iroplead the 2nd respondent as additional applicant was passed by the Tribunal on 29 — 5 -1973 without notice to the petitioner. In the affidavit in support of the application to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has averred that she came to know of the order impleading the 2nd respondent only when she saw the certificate of purchase issued in the joint names of herself and the 2nd respondent. The petitioner submitted an application before the Land Board apparently invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of S.101 of the Act, and the appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority immediately after receipt of a memo from the Land Board stating that the appropriate remedy of the petitioner was to file an appeal to the Appellate Authority under S.102 of the Act. This was therefore an appropriate case where the Appellate Authority should have entertained the appeal and should have set right the gross illegality committed by the Land Tribunal in impleading a third person after it had pronounced Heal orders in the matter. Once the illegality in the proceedings of a lower Tribunal is properly brought before the notice of the Appellate Authority it has a duty to correct the same Since I find from the records of the case that the Land Tribunal had impleaded the 2nd respondent after final orders were passed on the application submitted by the petitioner, and without notice to her, I do not think it necessary for me to send this case back to the Appellate Authority for consideration of the appeal on its merits. I have already found that the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. No other question arises in this case. The result is I allow the C.R.P., set aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 29-5-1973 impleading the 2nd respondent as an additional applicant in 0 A. No. 874/70 and direct the Land Tribunal to correct the certificate of purchase deleting the name of the 2nd respondent therefrom. There will be no order as to costs in this C.R.P.