The legal heirs can be proceeded against for determining the excess land held by the deceased, even if no proceedings were initiated against the deceased before his death.

Sreedharan, ag. C.J.

State and Taluk Land Board, Parur-respondents 1 and 2 respectively in O. P. 39187 1987 - are the appellants. Taluk Land Board initialed suo-moto proceedings for taking possession of the excess land held by Varghese, who expired in 1973. By proceedings dt. 21.11.1977, the Taluk Land Board found that an area of 15.85.621 acres of 1 and was held by Sri. Varghese as on 1.1.1970 as excess land. Legal representatives of the deceased were directed to surrender the above area as excess land. That order of the Taluk Land Board was questioned before this Court in C.R. P. 549/1978. This Court by order dt. 30.8.1978 quashed the order of the Taluk Land Board taking the view that suo-moto proceedings were taken without intimation from the Land Board as required under S.85(7) of the Land Reforms Act, While disposing of the same, this Court observed that the Taluk Land Board is free to proceed under S.87, since the land in question is vested on the legal heirs in 1973 consequent on the death of original owner - Varghese. Subsequently, on 15.12.1978, the State Land Board authorised the Taluk Land Board under S.85(7) to initiate suo-moto proceedings against the heirs of Varghese. Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 19/81 inserted S.(6A) to S.85 of the Land Reforms Act. By that amendment, proceedings for determination of the extent and other particulars of any land which are to be surrendered by a family or adult unmarried person or sole surviving member can be continued against legal representatives. The legal representatives are bound to surrender the same extent of land as the deceased. By virtue of of mat provision, the Ceiling Case against the deceased -Varghese - was restored to file by the Taluk Land Board on 15.6.1982. The draft statement with notice was issued to heirs of Varghese on 11.8.1982. Said proceedings were challenged by the heirs of Varghese in O. P. 6880/1982. This Court disposed of the Original Petition on 30.10.1986 with a direction to the petitioner to file objections to the above notice and draft statement. They were also allowed to question the competence of the Taluk Land Board to proceed against them in relation to the excess land left behind by Sri. Varghese. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court, objections were filed before the Taluk Land Board disputing its jurisdiction and right to proceed under S.85(7). Taluk Land Board rejected the objections raised by the legal heirs by order dt. 21.4.1987. Above decision was challenged in O. P. 3918/1987. The learned Single Judge allowed the Original Petition and quashed the order of the Taluk Land Board dt. 21.4.1987. Hence this appeal.

2. Short question mat was raised before the learned Single Judge was whether legal heirs of Varghese can be proceeded against for determining the excess land held by Varghese if Varghese did not file any declaration and no proceedings were initiated against him requiring Mm to surrender the excess land. The State and the Taluk Land Board contended before the learned judge that the legal heirs cannot retain the excess land which was bound to be surrendered by deceased Varghese. The learned Single Judge took the view that neither S.85(6A) nor the transitory provision in the Act have anything to do with the proceedings which were initiated for the first time alter the death of the person who was liable to surrender land. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is that the above provisions are meant to be applied in a case where proceedings have been initiated before the death of Varghese and such proceedings have either discontinued on account of his death or have abated as a consequence of the death. In other words, in the absence of any proceedings against Varghese before his death, the Taluk Land Board and the State are having no power to proceed against the legal heirs.

3. In State of Kerala v. Varkey Mathew, AIR 1996 SC 1009, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court took the view:

"If the estate was succeeded by