JUDGMENT

1. The appeals arise from the orders of the single Judge of the Kerala High Court made in CRP No. 2731/82 dated July 14, 1987. The admitted facts are that Kerala Land Reforms Act 1964 was enforced w.e.f. January 1, 1970 and by operation thereof the entire excess land stood vested in the State. Section 85 of the Act prescribes procedure for computation of the excess land. Under S. 85 (2), where a person owns or holds land in excess of the ceiling area such person shall within a period of three months from the date notified under S. 83, file a statement before the Land Board intimating the location, extent and such other particulars as may be prescribed, of all the lands including lands exempted under S. 81 owned or held by such person indicating the lands proposed to be surrendered. Admittedly, respondent Varkey Mathew did not file the statements and he died in 1973. The Special Tehsildar submitted his report regarding excess land owned by the deceased as on 1-1-1970 by his proceedings dated April 6, 1978. The Taluk Land Board passed an order on July 15, 1978 initialing the proceedings under S. 85 (7) against the respondents. On representation made by the respondents by proceedings dated September 26, 1981, the Board cancelled its earlier order finding that the earlier order was not legal. When it was questioned the High Court held that since the proceedings were not initiated against the owner before his death, no provision was made under the Act to initiate proceedings against the legal representatives. Even amendment brought by S. 85 (6A) would not enable the appellant to proceed against the respondents and accordingly dismissed the revision. Thus this appeal by special leave.

2. Shri George, learned counsel appearing for the State, contended that once the person who owns the land is bound to file the statement under S. 85 (2) or 85 (3A), his estate still continues to be in excess of the ceiling limit and the procedure prescribed under the Act is only for computation of the excess area. Then the persons in possession are liable to account for, and therefore, notice was rightly issued to the successor-in-interest, namely, the legal representatives or person who holds the land or owns the land, as the case may be. In other words he contends that the computation is as against the estate of the deceased and therefore the successors-in-interest are liable to account for the excess land and computation thereof is done as per law.

3. Mr. P. K. Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that word person defined in Section 2(43) does not include the legal representatives or the successors in interest. The legislature having realised the lacuna amended and brought on statute Section 85 (6A), which prohibits abatement of the pending proceedings. Therefore, the legal representatives who succeed the estate of the deceased as successors-in-interest are not liable to be proceeded with under S. 85 (7) or 85 (7A), as the case may be.

4. The question, therefore, is whether the successor-in-interest be it by intestate succession or testamentary or transfer intra vivos is to he proceeded in computation of the excess land owned or held by a deceased, who in this appeal was Varkey Mathew. Section 85 (2) admittedly enjoins the owner or holder of the land to file a statement within a period of three months from the date notified under S. 83 and the amended statement as prescribed. Section 85 (7) provides that where any person fails to file the statement, the Land Board shall intimate the fact to the Taluk Land Board and thereupon the Taluk Land Board shall, after necessary enquiries, determine the extent and other particulars of the land or lands which is or are to be surrendered. In other words. the statute prescribes liability on the person who owes or holds the land in excess of the ceiling limit and if such a person fails to file the statement in accordance with law, the Board is enjoined to proceed against such p