Judgment :- K.K. Usha, J. This civil revision petition arises under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The question referred for consideration by the Bench is whether the Land Tribunal has got power to implead strangers as parties in the proceeding. 2. Suo mote proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Collector, Land Tribunal, Kannur for assignment of jenmam right to the revision petitioners over an extent of 1.10 Acres of land in R.S. No. 31/pt. of Kurumattur desom. During the pendency of the proceeding the 2nd respondent as well as one Sukdev sought to get impleaded in the proceedings claiming tenancy right over the said land. Their applications for getting impleaded were allowed. Ultimately, the claim put forward by Sukdev was not accepted by the Land Tribunal. As far as the 2nd respondent is concerned the Land Tribunal took the view that he is the cultivating tenant of the above said 1 and. The above finding was affirmed on appeal filed by the revision petitioners before the Appellate Authority (Land reforms ), Kannur. The contention raised by the revision petitioners that the Land Tribunal has no power to implead the 2nd respondent herein as party in the proceeding was not accepted by both the authorities. This finding, inter alia, is under challenge in this revision petition. 3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners relying on a Bench decision of this Court in Subramaniya Iyer v. Taluk Land Board, 1985 KLT 1140, that there is no power under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 enabling the Land Tribunal to implead third parties. In the above mentioned decision the question that came up for consideration was whether the Taluk Land Board has power under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 to implead third parties. The Bench took the view that apart from the power specifically given under R.92(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 to implead certain persons as the legal representatives of a deceased party in the proceeding pending before the Board, the Land Board has no other power to implead a stranger in the proceeding. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, this principle should be applied in the case of the application filed by the 2nd respondent before the Land Tribunal also. 4. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, this principle should be applied in the case of the application filed by the 2nd respondent before the Land Tribunal also. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the above judgment has no application in the facts of this case. While considering an application by the 2nd respondent it is not the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 that should be applied but the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and assignment) Rules, 1970 should be made applicable. R.5 of the above Rules would show that it provides for the procedure to be followed while suo mote proceedings are initiated by the Land Tribunal. Admittedly in this case, the proceedings are suo motu proceedings. R.8 of the above Rules further provides that an application under sub-s.(4) of S.72F shall be in Form F and shall be presented before the date of the order of the Land Tribunal under sub-s.(5) of that section. It is further provided that on presentation of such application, the Land Tribunal shall implead the applicant as a party to the proceedings before it and if he is so impleaded, he will be given an opportunity to file a statement setting forth his claims and objections regarding the assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner and intermediaries in respect of that land to the cultivating tenant or any matter connected therewith. 5. S.72F deals with the matters relating to issue of notices, determination of compensation and purchase price etc. by the Land Tribunal. Sub-s.(1) deals with public notice to be given by the Land Tribunal calling landowner, intermediaries, cultivating tenant and all other persons interested in the land, the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government, to prefer claims and objections, if any. Sub-s.(2) provides for issue of individual notices as far as practicable. Sub-s.(4) provides that any person interested in the land, to whom no notice under sub-s.(2) has been issued, may apply to the Land Tribunal stating the nature of his claim or objection and the relief he requires. It is his application that is contemplated under R.8 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and assignment) Rules, 1970 referred above. 6. Sub-s.(4) provides that any person interested in the land, to whom no notice under sub-s.(2) has been issued, may apply to the Land Tribunal stating the nature of his claim or objection and the relief he requires. It is his application that is contemplated under R.8 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and assignment) Rules, 1970 referred above. 6. We cannot accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that S.72F can have application only in the matter of determining compensation and purchase price. A reading of sub-s.(5) of S.72F would show that it contemplates an order of the Land Tribunal specifying the extent, survey number and such other particulars as may be prescribed, of the land, the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government under S.72, among other matters. The provisions of R.10 would also make the position clear. R.17 provides that the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 shall so far as may be, apply to all matters relating to the assignment of the right, title and interest of landowners and intermediaries vested in the Government under S.7 2 of the cultivating tenants, in respect of which provision has not been made in these rules. Therefore, it is clear that only in respect of matters which are not provided under Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and assignment) Rules, 1970 reference need be made to Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970. The 2nd respondent herein is a person interested coming under sub-s.4 of S.72F. Therefore, an application at his instance as per R.8 is maintainable under law. The Land Tribunal is competent to implead a person in the nature of the 2nd respondent. R.92(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 will not stand in the way of the Land Tribunal exercising such power to implead the interested person. 7. In Kamala Devi v. Leelamma & 3 Ors., ILR 1991 (2) Ker. 632, the learned single judge has taken the view that the Land Tribunal has no power to implead a stranger in a suo mote proceedings. A reading of the judgment would show that the attention of the learned judge was not invited to the provisions contained under the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and assignment) Rules, 1970. 632, the learned single judge has taken the view that the Land Tribunal has no power to implead a stranger in a suo mote proceedings. A reading of the judgment would show that the attention of the learned judge was not invited to the provisions contained under the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and assignment) Rules, 1970. In 1985 KLT 1140 (supra) the question came up for consideration was proceedings before the Land Board to which the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting & assignment) Rules, 1970 has no application. Therefore, this decision is also no authority for the proposition which had come up for consideration in the present case. 8. In the light of the above discussion, we answer the question referred by holding that the Land Tribunal has got power to implead strangers as parties in the proceeding. 9. The matter will go back to the appropriate Bench for consideration on merits.