Judgment :- 1. This revision is against the concurrent orders of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority, Land Reforms for shifting of the revision-petitioner's kudikidappu from item 1 to item 3 mentioned in the application. The bona fide need of shifting for the purpose of constructing a residential house for the applicant landowner has been concurrently found. Item 3 offered for shifting the kudikidappu is concurrently found to be a plot of land fit for erecting a homestead. Even though the learned Counsel Sri. O. V. Radhakrishnan has challenged these findings, I do not find much substance in the challenge for the reason that the findings are based on the evidence adduced in the case. 2. It is pointed out that the kudikidappu is located at a place northeast of item 1 abutting the K. K. Road. The learned Counsel points out that the entire plot has a road frontage of over 150 feet, that the kudikidappu occupies a road frontage of 64 links only and even retaining the kudikidappu at the present spot there will be no inconvenience to the applicant landowner for the construction of a residential house which will have sufficient road frontage. The argument is on a question of fact. However on closer scrutiny, it can be found that this argument also cannot be accepted. It is not the area of the present structure of the kudikidappu that has to be excluded in considering the question as to the availability of road frontage for the residential house to be constructed in item 1. The kudikidappukaran bad also applied for purchase of kudikidappu and a preliminary order has already been passed in those proceedings which had become final and if the area available for purchase by the kudikidappukaran, according to the Act, is to be excluded, it cannot be said that there will be sufficient road frontage for a residential house to be constructed by the applicant in item 1. The evidence of the Commissioner as well as the Engineer who submitted a plan to construct a new building, would clearly show that if the kudikidappu is to be retained at its present site and the requisite extent of land as per the Act is to be assigned to the kudikidappukaran, there will not be sufficient road-frontage for item 1. 3. The main question raised by the learned Counsel Sri. 3. The main question raised by the learned Counsel Sri. O. V. Radhakrishnan is about the maintainability of the application itself. The kudikidappukaran had filed an application under S 60-B of the Act as O. A No. 395 of 1970. There was a preliminary finding by the Land Tribunal under R.81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Tenancy Rules on 23-11-1971 declaring the status of the applicant in O. A. No. 395/1970 as a kudikidappukaran. His status as a kudikidappukaran was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority and in further revision by this Court in CRP. No. 576 of 1975. The order of this Court upholding the preliminary finding under R.81 is dated 20-5-1975. It is after the disposal of the CRP. that the land owner filed the present application for shifting the kudikidappu. The learned Counsel Sri. Radhakrishnan submits that the application is not maintainable by virtue of the second proviso to S.77 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. As per this proviso the Land Tribunal shall not entertain any application for shifting of a kudikidappu if an order under sub-section (3) of S.80-B allowing an application for the purchase of kudikidappu has been passed and such order is in force. In the present case there is only a preliminary finding under R.81 of the Land Reforms Tenancy Rules. That is an order at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings under S.80-B of the Act, declaring the status of the kudikidappukaran. By virtue of the order of the Land Tribunal, which has been confirmed in appeal and revision, the status of the kudikidappukaran is no longer open to question by the land owner. Sub-section (4) of S.80-B provides for the details to be contained in a final order under subsection (3). No final order as is referred to in sub-section (4) has yet been passed. All that has happened is that the status of the applicant as a kudikidappukaran is declared, and his status is no longer open to question by the land owner He has accepted the finding and that is why the present application for shifting has been filed. 4. The learned Counsel Sri. All that has happened is that the status of the applicant as a kudikidappukaran is declared, and his status is no longer open to question by the land owner He has accepted the finding and that is why the present application for shifting has been filed. 4. The learned Counsel Sri. Radhakrishnan relies on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Abraham v. Joseph (1975 KLT 658) wherein it is held that a preliminary finding under R.81 is an order under subsection (3) of S.80-B and is therefore appealable under S.102 of the Act. The learned Counsel relies on the decision to contend that a preliminary order settles the question decided finally so far as the Land Tribunal is concerned, and it is not open to the Land Tribunal to reopen it at the final stage. Once the Land Tribunal has come to a finding in regard to the status of the applicant before it, it is no longer open to the Tribunal to go behind the decision at the stage of passing the final order. It does not mean that a preliminary finding as to the status of the applicant is an order of the nature referred to in the second proviso to S.77 which would preclude an application for the shifting of the kudikidappu. It cannot be said that a preliminary finding as to the status of the applicant is an order allowing an application under sub-section (3) of S.80-B of the Act. No other question arises in this CRP. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Dismissed.