The main legal point established is that the power to set aside an earlier decision under S.85 (9) of the Land Reforms Act is limited to specific conditions and does not preclude reopening of the proceeding, with a restricted scope of re-opening and the inability to re-agitate other questions concluded by the prior adjudication.

1. By the order dated 29 111974, the Taluk Land Board, Quilandy determined the surplus lands held by the petitioner to be 1.72 acres. In reaching this conclusion the Board bad treated as valid certain gift deeds executed by him between 1970 and 1974 in favour of bis adult children and in that view excluded from computation 4 acres of land covered by the gift deeds. In the decision of this Court in C. R.P. Nos. 677 add 1027 of 1974 (Narayanan Namboodiri v. Land Board, 1975 KLT. 171) it was held, in the mean while, that transfers after 111970 will have to be ignored in determining the surplus lands of the transferor. The Taluk Land Board therefore issued the petitioner a notice asking him to show cause why the order dated 29-11-1974 should not be set aside under S.85 (9) of the Land Reforms Act and proceedings started afresh. In answer to the notice the petitioner filed an objection contending that the Board had no power to re-open the proceeding in view of the order dated 29 111974 and that if it was reopened he should be allowed to contest the entire case afresh. By the order under revision the Board rejected these objections, reserving him liberty to argue his points relating to the gifts alone.

2. Mr. Viswanatha Iyer's first contention that by reason of the order dated 29 111974 which had finally decided the case, the Board has no jurisdiction to reopen the proceeding can be shortly dealt with as it is contrary to the provisions of S.85 (9) which reads thus:

"The Taluk Land Board may, if it is satisfied that the extent of lands surrendered by or assumed from a person under S.86 is less than the extent of lands which he was liable to surrender under the provisions of this Act or that the lands surrendered by, or assumed from, a person were not lawfully owned or held by him, set aside its order under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7), as the case may be, in respect of such lands and shall proceed afresh under that sub-section:"

It is obvious that S 85 (9) postulates an earlier decision and empowers the Board within the limits prescribed, to set aside that decision if two conditions are present (1) that the extent of lands surrendered by, or assumed from, a person under S.86 is less than the extent of lands which he was liable to surrender under the provisions of the Act and (2) that the lands surrendered by or assumed from, a person were not lawfully owned or held by him. (This power is however subject to two more restrictions imposed by the two provisos which follow-that before setting aside the order the Board has to give the person affected an opportunity of being heard and that the order cannot be set aside after the expiry of three years. Neither of these restrictions is relevant in this case). As the Section itself postulates an earlier decision which is allowed to be re-opened, there is do point in the contention that the prior decision precludes reopening of the proceeding. Subject to the requirements of prior notice and the time limit prescribed by the two provisos the only circumstances for the operation of sub section (9) are the two conditions noticed above. Of these the second condition is not applicable here, while it is clear that the first does apply for the lands surrendered by the petitioner or assumed from him as surplus lands are less than the lands which he was liable to surrender because the former did not take into account the lands covered by the invalid gift deeds.1 must therefore reject the contention against the Board's jurisdiction.

3. The more important contention however was directed to the scope of the order setting aside the previous order and to the rights of the person against whom the order is made. Now what sub-s. (9) contemplates is the setting aside of the order under sub-section (5) or Sub-section (7). Sub-section (5) provides for the order determining the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered by the person filing the statement and sub-section (7) provides for a like