Judgment :- 1. The petitioners challenge Ext. P2 order of the 2nd respondent, the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Ernakulam, confirming the finding of the 3rd respondent, the Land Tribunal in Ext. P1 to the effect that the 4th respondent is a cultivating tenant. The 2nd respondent, however, remanded the questions regarding fair rent and purchase price for fresh consideration by the Tribunal. 2. By Ext. P1 the Tribunal had found in O.A. No. 144 of 1975 that the 4th respondent was a cultivating tenant. That was a finding which was rendered by the Tribunal subsequent to Ext. P5 order of remand made by the 2nd respondent. In Ext. P5 the 2nd respondent had found that due opportunity was not given to the parties before the Tribunal came to a finding as to the status of the 4th respondent. Upon remand the Tribunal referred to the evidence of pws.1 to 3 and came to the conclusion that the 4th respondent was a cultivating tenant under one Raphael whose legal representatives are the petitioners. This finding was confirmed by the impugned order. 3. Two questions are urged before me by the petitioners' counsel. Counsel submits that in so far as the application on the basis of which an enquiry was conducted by the Tribunal was an application for fixation of fair rent in terms of S.31 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (the "Act"), the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in coming to a finding that the 4th respondent was entitled to be assigned land in terms of S.72C. Counsel further submits that neither the Tribunal nor the Appellate Authority had applied its mind to the points in issue with reference to the evidence placed by the parties. 4. S.72C enables the Land Tribunal to make a suo mote order assigning land in favour of a cultivating tenant. It reads: 72C. Assignment where application is not made by cultivating tenant. 4. S.72C enables the Land Tribunal to make a suo mote order assigning land in favour of a cultivating tenant. It reads: 72C. Assignment where application is not made by cultivating tenant. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of S.72B, or S.72BB the Land Tribunal may, subject to such rules as may be made by the Government in this behalf, at any time after the vesting of the right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in the Government under S.72, assign such right, title and interest to the cultivating tenants entitled thereto, and the cultivating tenants shall be bound to accept such assignment." Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970 ("Vesting and Assignment Rules") lays down the procedure in respect of suo mote proceedings. It reads: "5. Land Tribunal to initiate suo motu proceedings. (1) Where a Land Tribunal receives information under R.6 or otherwise that the right, title and interest of the landowner and intermediaries in respect of a holding or part of a holding situate within its jurisdiction have vested in the Government under S.72, it shall, notwithstanding that an application referred to in R.4 has not been received in respect of that holding or part, as the case may be, of its own motion assign such right, title and interest to the cultivating tenants entitled thereto in the manner hereinafter provided. (2) The Land Tribunal shall initiate separate proceedings under sub-rule (1) in respect of each holding or part of a holding, as the case may be. Counsel lays emphasis on sub-rule (2) which refers to separate proceedings and submits that no separate proceeding had been initiated by the Tribunal in terms of S.72 and R.5 before the decision was taken to make an assignment on the basis of an application made in terms of S.31. R.9 of the Vesting and Assignment Rules reads: "9. Dispute about tenancy or vesting. R.9 of the Vesting and Assignment Rules reads: "9. Dispute about tenancy or vesting. (1) Where after the publication of the public notice under sub-section (1) of S.72F and the service of the individual notice under subsection (2) of that section in respect of a holding, any of the parties to the proceedings pleads that the land comprised in such holding is not held by any cultivating tenant or that the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries in respect of such holding have not vested in the Government, the Land Tribunal shall decide such question as a preliminary point and pass an order thereon with reasons for such order. (2) Where the order under sub-rule (1) is that such land is not held by any cultivating tenant or that such right, title and interest have not vested in the Government, the Land Tribunal shall forthwith reject the application referred to in R.4 or discontinue the proceedings referred to in R.5 and such order for rejection or discontinuance, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be an order under S.72F for all purposes of the Act." This Rule shows that where a dispute arises as to the status of the claimant for assignment, that question shall be decided by the Tribunal. S.101 (3) says: "3. Where in any proceeding before the Land Tribunal a question arises whether a person is a small holder or not or whether a person is or is not a tenant or whether the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, in respect of any holding, have or have not vested in the Government under S.72, it shall be competent for the Land Tribunal to decide the question." This sub-section gives the Tribunal the power to decide the question as to whether or not a person is qualified for assignment when dispute arises in regard to it. It is thus clear that in terms of S.72C and R.5 and 9 of the Vesting and Assignment Rules together with the power under S.101 (3) the Land Tribunal is competent to decide as to whether or not a person is a cultivating tenant and, if so, to make by means of a suo mote order an assignment of land vested in the Government. 5. S.54 enables a cultivating tenant to make an application for purchase of landlord's rights. 5. S.54 enables a cultivating tenant to make an application for purchase of landlord's rights. Admittedly no such application had been made by the 4th respondent. S.72 speaks of vesting of the landlord's rights in the Government on the appointed day in respect of land held by a cultivating tenant who is entitled to fixity of tenure under S 13 and in respect of whom no certificate of purchase under S.59(2) has been issued. The only procedure that is available for deciding whether or not a vesting has taken place because of the character of the land is the procedure that has been laid down under the Vesting and Assignment Rules. 6. S.31 in terms of which an application has been presented by the 4th respondent postulates determination of fair rent by the Land Tribunal. The one question that has to be determined by the Tribunal before the fair rent is fixed is the fundamental question as to whether or not the applicant for fixation of fair rent is a person entitled to make the application, that is, whether or not he is a cultivating tenant. S.31 protects only the cultivating tenant and none other. An enquiry conducted under S.31 is, therefore, in substance and nature the same enquiry that is postulated under the Vesting and Assignment Rules in regard to a question arising under S.72C in so far as the status of the applicant is concerned. The question which the Land Tribunal has to decide, whether it acts under S.31 or S.72C read with the Vesting and Assignment Rules, is whether or not the applicant is a cultivating tenant. The consequential orders would be made only upon the decision of that substantive question. When the Tribunal by means of an enquiry under S.31 satisfies itself as to the status of the applicant, the Tribunal has already come to a decision on the substantive question on the basis of which it has the suo mote power to make an assignment in favour of that person. In the present case the Tribunal having come to a decision as to the status of the 4th respondent, the Tribunal has the necessary competence under the Act to make an order of assignment in his favour. In the present case the Tribunal having come to a decision as to the status of the 4th respondent, the Tribunal has the necessary competence under the Act to make an order of assignment in his favour. To make such order it is necessary for the Tribunal to fix the fair rent which it has to do under S.31 for the purpose of computing the purchase price. All this has been done. Although, as I have stated, the fixation of fair rent and the computation of purchase price had been upset by the Appellate Authority, and the matter was remanded, the Authority confirmed the finding of the Tribunal in regard to the status of the 4th respondent. 7. The finding of the Tribunal or that of the Appellate Authority is not liable to be upset in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution unless it be shown that that finding was vitiated by reason of it not being reasonably based on evidence or that the concerned Tribunal or authority failed to take into account relevant matters, or it has taken into account irrelevant matters, or it misapplied the law, or it failed to observe the rules of natural justice. The only vitiating circumstance in this respect that is urged before me is that the order of the Tribunal, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority, is not founded on evidence. As T have stated earlier, the Tribunal relied upon the evidence of pw.1 who is the 4th respondent and on the supporting evidence of pws. 2 and 3 who are village officers. The Tribunal also had before it the report of the Revenue Inspector. It was on the basis of such evidence and after hearing the parties and affording them a due opportunity of presenting their respective contentions that the Tribunal came to a finding. With that finding the Appellate Authority concurred. I see no reason to interfere with such finding on the merits. 8. As I have stated earlier, that the Tribunal has made an order of assignment on the basis of a finding reached in the course of an enquiry initiated on an application in terms of S.31, is not a valid reason to contend that the Tribunal was not competent to make an assignment in terms of S.72C. 8. As I have stated earlier, that the Tribunal has made an order of assignment on the basis of a finding reached in the course of an enquiry initiated on an application in terms of S.31, is not a valid reason to contend that the Tribunal was not competent to make an assignment in terms of S.72C. The requirement of separate enquiry postulated under S.72C had been fully satisfied in the present case where the Tribunal came to a finding, on a proper enquiry, as to the points to be found before an assignment is made. When power is conferred by the statute for doing a thing, and when that thing is done on the basis of a proper application of the mind by a proper enquiry, the decision reached in the exercise of such power is not liable to be upset in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. I am satisfied that by the impugned order (Ext. P2) the Appellate Authority was justified in affirming the conclusion reached by the Tribunal by Ext. P1. In the circumstances, the challenge against Ext. P2 fails. The Original Petition is dismissed. No costs. Dismissed.