Judgment :- 1. 'A' party in a proceeding under S.72C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is the petitioner. 2. The proceeding was disposed of in favour of the 'A' party. That order was under challenge at the instance of the 'B' party, before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Land Tribunal for a de novo consideration. The Land Tribunal instead of considering the case afresh, dropped the proceeding and the said order was challenged by 'A' party before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by the order under challenge held that the appeal is not maintainable. 3. It is against the said order, this revision is filed. 4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether or not the order of the Land Tribunal, disposing of a proceeding under S.72C is an appealable order. The answer to the question depends upon the construction of S.72(1), 72C, 72F and 102 of the KLR Act. 5. S.72(1) provides that all right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants (including holders of kudiyiruppus and holders of karaimas) entitled to fixity of tenure under S.13 and in respect of which certificates of purchase under sub-s. (2) of S.59 have not been issued, shall, subject to the provisions of the section, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances created by the landowners and intermediaries and subsisting thereon on the notified date. We are not concerned with the other sub-sections of S.72. The cultivating tenant of a holding or part of a holding, the right, tide and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government under S.72, will be entitled to assignment of such right, title and interest provided the conditions stipulated in the proviso to S.72A(1) are satisfied. S.72A(1) recognises the right of the landlord to claim compensation from the holders of the land on whom the right to purchase the right, title and interest of the landlord is vested under S.72(B). S.72(BB) provides that the landowner or the intermediary whose right, title and interest in respect of any holding have vested in the Government, can apply to the Land Tribunal for the assignment of such right, title and interest to the cultivating tenant and for the payment of compensation due to him under S.72A. Then comes S.72C. S.72(BB) provides that the landowner or the intermediary whose right, title and interest in respect of any holding have vested in the Government, can apply to the Land Tribunal for the assignment of such right, title and interest to the cultivating tenant and for the payment of compensation due to him under S.72A. Then comes S.72C. It confers authority on the Land Tribunal to initiate suo motu proceedings with a view to assign the right, title and interest vested in the Government to the cultivating tenants, entitled thereto. The persons who are found to be the cultivating tenants in the said S. M. Proceedings are bound to accept such assignment. 6. The scheme of these sections indicates that whether the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the cultivating tenant, suo mote or by the landowner, the Land Tribunal is bound to enquire into and determine the point whether the person who claims to be the cultivating tenant is entitled to the assignment of the right, title and interest of the landowner in respect of the holding vested in the Government, under S.72. The procedure for determination of compensation and purchase price is, whether the proceedings falls under S.72BB or 72 C, the one prescribed under S.72F. S.72(F), according to me thus takes in its fold suo motu proceedings under S.72C also. A reference in this connection to S.72C is relevant. The power of the Land Tribunal under S.72C to initiate suo mote proceedings to assign the right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries vested in the Government under S.72, to the cultivating tenant entitled thereto is notwithstanding anything contained in sub-S.3 of S.72B or S.72BB. The marginal note makes it clear that the said right is exercised only when the cultivating tenant fails to apply under S.72B. 7. The right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of a holding vested in the Government under S.72 will thus be assigned to the cultivating tenant whether the assignment is as a result of an order passed in a proceeding initiated under S.72B, 72BB or 72C. In short the object in initiating proceedings under S.72C is identical with the object with which proceedings under S.72B and 72BB are initiated. In short the object in initiating proceedings under S.72C is identical with the object with which proceedings under S.72B and 72BB are initiated. The ultimate order that will be passed in these proceedings is the same, namely, the order directing assignment of the right, title and interest of the landowner vested in the Government in respect of the holdings, to the cultivating tenant on his paying the compensation as determined by the Land Tribunal. 8. Having understood the position thus, let us consider the scope of S.102 which provides for an appeal against certain orders. This section states that the Government or any person aggrieved by any order of the Land Tribunal (leaving out unnecessary parts of the Section) under S.72F, may appeal against such order within such time as may be prescribed, to the Appellate, Authority. The order of the Land Tribunal falling under S.72(F) thus is an appealable order. 9. From the discussions above it is clear that the order disposing of the S.M. Proceedings under S.72C is also an order that falls under S.72F. If that be so that order is also an appealable order. 10. That the order which was under challenge before the Appellate Authority by the petitioner was an order coming under S.72F, is beyond dispute. If that be so it is an appealable order. The appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority as incompetent, therefore is maintainable. The order under challenge therefore is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Court for a de novo disposal bearing in mind the observations contained in the order. The CRP is allowed. No order as to costs.