The main legal point established in the judgment is that a 'person interested' in the context of S.85(8) of the Land Reforms Act must have a right in the land that existed prior to 1-1-1970 to invoke the aid of the provision.

Balanarayana Marar, J.

Revision arises from the order of the Taluk Land Board, Tirur, in C.R.No.251/ 73/C6 dated 31-5-1988. Petitioners, three in number are applicants in the petition submitted under S.85(8) of the Land Reforms Act. Ceiling proceedings had been initiated against the 4th respondent, the declarant who was directed to surrender 4.33 acres of land. First petitioner claimed to be in possession of 67 cents of land in R.S.13671 of Kattiparuthy Village as per assignment dated 10-5-1971 executed by the 4th respondent. Second petitioner claimed to be in possession of an area of 1.40 acres in the same survey number. His father is alleged to have been in possession as a tenant whose rights devolved on second petitioner and others who had obtained purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal. Third petitioner also claims to be in possession of a property wherein a Lower Primary School stands. That property is alleged to have been taken assignment of by one Mohamed Musaliar from 4th respondent in 1961 from whom the third petitioner is alleged to have obtained an assignment. Purchase certificate is stated to have been issued to Mohamed Musaliar from Land Tribunal, Kuttippuram.

2. The Taluk Land Board rejected the application for the reason that the property claimed by the first petitioner was not taken possession of by the authorities and that the claims of the other two petitioners are inordinately delayed. Aggrieved by that order the applicants have come up in revision.

3. When the matter came up before a learned single judge it was felt that there is a-conflict between the decision rendered in C.R.P. Nos. 834 and 1743/79 reported in 1981 KLT Short Notes 85 - Sunny v. Taluk Land Board and two other decisions reported in 1988(1) KLT 350 Malathi Amma v. Taluk Land Board and 1989(2) KLT 806 -Sundaran v. Slate of Kerala. The case was therefore adjourned for being heard by a Bench of two Judges. That is how the matter has come before us.

4. Heard counsel for revision petitioners and Government Pleader.

5. The plea of revision petitioners is that they are interested in the land directed to be surrendered and they have a right to be heard on the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered. This plea, according to the Government Pleader is unsustainable since first petitioner have come into possession after the commencement of the Land Reforms' Act as amended by Act 35 of 1969 and petitioners 2 and 3 have not produced any material to show that they had been in possession prior to 1-1-1970. S.85(8) of the Land Reforms Act enables a person interested in the land to move the Taluk Land Board to get the order set aside if the determination of the land to be surrendered by any person was made without hearing him. The person so interested has to apply to the Taluk Land Board within a period of 60 days from the date of such determination. If he satisfies the Board that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing before the Board it shall set aside the order and then proceed under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) as the case may be in determining the extent and other particulars of the 1 and, the ownership or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered. Only a person interested in the land is competent to move the Land Board under sub-section (8) of S.85 of the Act. The question to be considered is whether petitioners are persons interested in the land or not.

6. Admittedly first petitioner has come into possession in 1971 after the commencement of the Land Reforms Act as amended by Act 35 of 1989 by which time the ceiling provisions contained in the Act had come into force and the person in possession of lands in excess of ceiling area were liable to file a declaration of the properties held by them. The question whether such person is a person interested came up for consideration before this Court in Malathi Amma v. Taluk Land Board (1988(1) KLT 350). This court held that only such persons who claime