Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner is the applicant in proceedings under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The claim of the revision petitioner as Kudikidappukaran was ultimately rejected by the Land Tribunal finding that the building used as homestead is not a hut. The appellate authority confirmed the order. 2. The contention taken up on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the authorities below in holding that the building is not a but had erred in not acting upon the original report filed by the authorised officer ignoring Ext.C2 report filed by the Commissioner and Ext. C3 the further report by the authorised officer. The argument advanced is that the report filed in the first instance is to be treated as a report of a Commissioner and without setting aside the same a second Commission should not have been issued and therefore the second report as also the further verification report cannot be looked into. 3. The original report was filed by the Revenue Inspector valuing the building at Rs. 650/- before the remand by the appellate authority on setting aside the original order of the Land Tribunal. The appellate authority has issued a Commission after hearing both sides in the course of the appellate proceedings. If no objection had been taken up at that stage it is not open to the parties to challenge the report on the ground now urged in revision. There is also no force in the contention. 4. S.101(1)(d) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act invests the Land Tribunal with the powers of a civil court in the matter of issuing Commission for local investigation. The appellate authority, in exercising the powers which a court has in deciding the appeals had undoubtedly the power to issue Commission and take additional evidence in exercise of the power under S.101 and S.102(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act read with 0.41 R.27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The report of the authorised officer under S.105A cannot be equated to a report obtained in exercise of the power under S.101 of the Act. It is not necessary to set aside the report before issuing a Commission under S.101 and the decision in Premananda Bharathi v. Yogananda Bharathi, 1985 K.L.T. 144 has no application in such a case. The report of the authorised officer under S.105A cannot be equated to a report obtained in exercise of the power under S.101 of the Act. It is not necessary to set aside the report before issuing a Commission under S.101 and the decision in Premananda Bharathi v. Yogananda Bharathi, 1985 K.L.T. 144 has no application in such a case. S.105 A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act provides the machinery for the Land Tribunal and the Taluk Land Board for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act by calling for the necessary information from the officers appointed under S.105 of the Act. The authorised officers are invested with the powers to hold enquiries and make the report after investigation or inspection for the purpose of collecting the relevant data. Where the Land Tribunal or the Taluk Land Board considers further verification necessary in a given case, it can call for such reports as well. 5. Accordingly verification reports have been obtained in the present case. The further verification report has been necessitated in view of the subsequent events after the first report was filed. The Revenue Inspector has, in the second report, valued the building at a cost exceeding Rs. 750/-. The report of the Commissioner and the verification report had been duly considered by the Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion that the building is not a hut. The appellate authority has examined the correctness of that finding by scrutiny of the entire evidence. The materials before the lower authorities could not be ignored and has been rightly relied on. As the evidence fully supports the finding that the building is not a hut, the conclusion that the revision petitioner is not entitled to kudikidappu right is valid and cannot be assailed as erroneous in law. I find no merit in the revision. The revision dismissed. No costs.