Thereupon, respondents 1 and 2 filed A.A.No.59 of 2006 on the file of the court of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kannur, challenging the order in S.M.C.69 of 1997. The Appellate Authority, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, thought it fit that a consideration of the case on the merits is required and for that purpose it is necessary to remand the case to the Land Tribunal. It was noticed that the Land Tribunal did not consider the contentions which were raised in the appeal filed by respondents 1 and 2 and therefore, the decision of the Land Tribunal was not on the merits of the contentions put forward by the parties. The petitioner and the other legal representative of Perachikutty on the one hand and respondents 1 and 2 herein on the other hand claimed rival title and both parties say that they are the cultivating tenants. That is a matter to be decided by the Land Tribunal on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence. The Appellate Authority thought that in these circumstances, a remand of the case to the Land Tribunal was
