The main legal point established in the judgment is that S.85(9) connotes a class of orders different from those falling under S.85(5) or S.85(7) and that the Taluk Land Board acted without jurisdiction in issuing the notice to reopen a reopened order of itself.

The two petitioners are mother and son, being the wife and son of one P.V. Kuruvilla, who was the declarant in ceiling case S.R.No.101/73 of the Taluk Land Board, Kothamangalam, the 2nd respondent. He had filed statement of his holdings, as required by S.85 (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 (the Act). The matter was enquired into by the Taluk Land Boarti, who, by the order dated November 11,1975, held that Curuvilla did not own or hold any land in excess of the ceiling area prescribed in the Act. The ceiling case was accordingly closed.

2. The proceedings were later reopened under S.85(9) of the Act, pursuant o notice dated September 1, 1978, on the apprehension that Kuruvilla really owned or icldlandin excess of the prescribed ceiling limits. The order dated November 11,1975 vas set aside. A draft statement dated April 1,1980, containing proposals for determination of the surrender able area was served on the first petitioner, one of the legal heirs of Curuvilla, who was meanwhile dead on January 21,1980. The law as it stood then, did not enable continuance of the proceedings against the legal heirs of the deceased declarant, such a provision namely sub-section (6A) of S.85 having been introduced in the Act for the first time only by the amending Act 19 of 1981, though with retrospective effect from January 1,1970. The Taluk Land Board therefore, decided on July 15, 1980 not to minuet the proceedings, and to proceed afresh against the legal heirs of deceased Curuvilla under S.87. This provision enables initiation of proceedings, where any person acquires land after January 1,1970 by inheritance or otherwise and thereby the extent of and owned or held by him exceeds the ceiling limits. The Deputy Tahsildar was called upon to make report regarding the holdings of the legal heirs of the deceased, which he lid on August 30,1980. The proceedings under S.87 "continued" against the legal heirs of Kuruvilla, considering each of them as a separate entity. There was an elaborate discussion of the matter, and by the proceedings dated September 9,1980, the Taluk Land Board came to the conclusion that none of the legal heirs had any excess land. The proceedings were therefore, dropped once more.

3. This did not however put an end to the travails of the parties. Sub-section [6A) was introduced into S.85 by Act 19 of 1981 permitting continuance of proceedings against the legal representatives of the deceased declarant. The Taluk Land Board hereupon reopened the proceedings again on June 15, 1982 and issued a fresh draft statement in the name of deceased Kuruvilla, and served the notice under R.12 (2) of the Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules on fcis legal heirs. They objected and the Taluk Land Board by its order Ext.P3 dated August 23,1982 once again came to the conclusion that Kuruvilla did not own or hold any excess land as on January 1,1970 and that therefore, le was not liable to surrender any land. The proceedings were accordingly dropped. Nevertheless and after all these repeated exercises and findings that neither Kuruvilla or his heirs owned or held any land in excess, the Taluk Land Board again issued notice Ext.P4 dated May 3,1985 purporting to reopen the ceiling case after setting aside the order Ext.P3 dated August 23,1982. The petitioner filed this original petition challenging the notice Ext.P4 with the plea that the proceedings are misconceived, without jurisdiction and time barred.

4. The facts stated above are culled, out from the counter affidavit of the respondents, and the exhibits in the case. There can therefore, be no dispute about them. Petitioners 'contention is that the proceedings purported to be initiated by notice Ext.P4 are invalid. They point out that by the second proviso to S.85 (9) the Board cannot set aside an order after the expiry of three years from the date on which it became final. The order liable to be reopened under S.85(9) is an original order of the Taluk Land Board, and not one passed