Judgment :- 1. The 14th respondent in an application under S.72B of the Land Reforms Act, for purchase of the rights of the landlord and intermediary vested in the Government under S 72, is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is an intermediary in respect of the holding. The holding is of an extent of about 22 cents in Sy. No. 195/2 of Elethil Amsom and Desom, Kozhikode Taluk. The applicants are holding the land under a renewed kanom demise dated 13-9-1956 granted by the 14th respondent to them The document specifically excludes 17 coconut trees reserved for the use of the intermediary. The demise is for a period of six years The kanom amount is Rs. 25/- and the Michavaram is Re. 1/- per annum. That the applicants are cultivating tenants in respect of the holding, is not disputed before me. Both the authorities below have held that the applicants are entitled to purchase the rights of the landlord and the intermediary vested in the Government under S.72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Both the authorities below have held that the intermediary is not entitled to have the coconut trees reserved in the document excluded from assignment. The Land Tribunal has fixed the compensation in respect of the holding at Rs. 3024 including Rs. 2530/- as compensation for the coconut trees reserved in favour of the intermediary. In appeal the Appellate Authority has confirmed the decision of the Land Tribunal that the intermediary is not entitled to exclusion of the coconut trees reserved in the document for his use. It has however reduced the amount of compensation payable by the cultivating tenant to Rs. 983.84 fixing the value of the coconut trees at Rs. 513.84. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 17 coconut trees reserved for his use in the document of demise dated 13-9-1956 will not vest in the Government under S.72 of the Act and the cultivating tenant is not entitled to an assignment of the rights of the intermediary in regard to the coconut trees reserved. The learned counsel submits that the document specifically excludes the 17 coconut trees from the demise and the tenant can have no right for assignment of the rights of the intermediary in respect of the same. The learned counsel submits that the document specifically excludes the 17 coconut trees from the demise and the tenant can have no right for assignment of the rights of the intermediary in respect of the same. S.72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, enacts that on the date notified by the Government under the Section, all right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of the holdings held by cultivating tenants entitled to fixity of tenure under S.13 shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances created by the landowners and intermediaries A cultivating tenant of a holding is entitled to assignment of the right, title and interest vested in the Government under S.72. "Holding" is defined in S.2(17) to mean a parcel or parcels of land held under a single transaction by a tenant from a landlord and shall include any portion of a holding which the landlord and the tenant have agreed or are bound to treat as a separate holding. The holding therefore is land held by the tenant under a landlord. The vesting of rights in the Government under S 72 relates to all rights, title and interest of the landlord and the intermediary in the holding. Hence there is a statutory vesting of the right, title and interest of the landlord and the intermediary in the Government and the cultivating tenant is entitled to assignment of such rights under S.72B of the Act It is clear that the rights of the intermediary in respect of certain coconut trees reserved in the holding for his enjoyment do not survive the statutory vesting It is also clear from the Explanation to S.72K (i) of the Act which is extracted below: "Explanation:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that on the issue of the certificate of purchase, the landowner or any intermediary shall have no right in the land comprised in the holding, and all his rights including rights, if any, in respect of trees reserved for his enjoyment shall stand extinguished " A Division Bench of this Court in Pareekutty v. District Collector, Malappuram, A. S. No. 128 of 1974, reported in 1978 KLN Case Notes page 93 at page 94 has held: "The lands included in the lease constitute the holding of the tenant. The right of the landowner over the reserved trees would in our opinion, fall within the description 'of right, title and interest in respect of holdings" because it cannot be said that the right of the landowner over a standing tree is not part of his right over the holding." The authorities below are therefore perfectly right in holding that the rights of the intermediaries in respect of the coconut trees reserved in the document of demise shall also vest in the Government under S.72 and that the cultivating tenant is entitled to assignment of such rights vested in the Government. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority is clearly wrong in reducing the compensation fixed by the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal in its order has staled: "The tenant (Sri Mayan) has voluntarily agreed to pay the valuation of the 16 coconut trees (Rs. 2530/-) and the structures (Rs. 470/-). Thus the total purchase price including the fair rent, value of timber trees and other coconut trees and structures comes to Rs 3024.00 in all." Thus it is clear that the value of the coconut trees payable to the intermediary is fixed as voluntarily agreed to by the tenant. The Appellate Authority has interfered with this and has reduced the compensation due for the coconut trees in the property. The Appellate Authority has fixed the compensation for the coconut trees on the basis of its fair rent calculated at the rate mentioned in Schedule III and capitalising the fair rent at 12 times. Once there is an agreement between the parties as regards compensation for the coconut trees, the right, title and interest in respect of which also stand transferred to the tenant, there was no need for the Appellate Authority to have adjudicated upon the question of compensation for these trees. True there was an appeal by the tenant before the Appellate Authority against the quantum of compensation fixed by the Land Tribunal but no specific ground is taken denying the voluntary agreement referred to in the order of the Land Tribunal. Under these circumstances the Land Tribunal should be taken to have correctly recorded the agreement between the parties before it. The Appellate Authority should not have interfered with a decision based on an agreement before the Land Tribunal. Under these circumstances the Land Tribunal should be taken to have correctly recorded the agreement between the parties before it. The Appellate Authority should not have interfered with a decision based on an agreement before the Land Tribunal. The result is I confirm the decision of both the authorities below in so far as it directs assignment of the right, title and interest of the landlord and intermediaries in the holding to the cultivating tenant; such assignment relates also to the right of the intermediary . for the coconut trees in the property. On the question of compensation payable by the cultivating tenant. I set aside the decision of the Appellate Authority and restore that of the Land Tribunal. The CRP. is allowed to the extent indicated above and dismissed in other respects No costs.