1. Revision is against the Order of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad directing petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the declarant in a ceiling proceedings under Section 85(7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, for short, the ‘Act’, to surrender the excess land of the declarant determined as 10.67 ½ acres.

2. In the above revision, some third parties claiming that they have obtained under registered documents interest over portions of the land determined as excess area, applied for impleading them as additional respondents, separately, filing two applications. Such applications for impleadment of the respective petitioners therein were allowed making it clear that acceptability of the contentions raised by them will be a matter to be decided in the revision. Those applicants have been impleaded as additional respondents 4 to 15 in the revision.

3. I heard the counsel for revision petitioners, learned Special Government Pleader for Revenue, and also counsel appearing for third parties brought in as additional respondents in the revision.

4. The Taluk Land Board after getting sanction from the State Land Board initiated suo motu proceedings against Sri. Dhanikachala Udayar, S/o. Sethu Udayar, predecessor of the revision petitioners, who possessed more than 12 acres of land as on 01.01.1970 but failed to file the ceiling return. Enquiry revealed that he possessed a total extent of 26.96 acres of land and after the exemption available he was found possessing an extent of 12.87 ¼ acres in excess of the ceiling limit. Notice was issue to the declarant with a draft statement to file objection, if any. Declarant responded to that notice and filed an objection statement dated 30.10.1990 contending that major portions of the land covered by the draft statement are held by others before 01.01.1970, and, so, the proceedings have to be closed holding that he has no excess land beyond the ceiling limit. His objection that possession of some properties covered by the draft statement are with third parties was got enquired into through the authorised officer. The report of the authorised officer indicated that some third parties have obtained registered documents from declarant. Notices were issued to them to consider whether properties under the instruments taken are liable to be excluded. Only some persons who have obtained purchase certificates over portions of land covered by the draft statement from the Land Tribunal appeared and produced documents. After conducting an enquiry through the Tahsildar over the ownership and possession and also whether such claimants were eligible for exemption, claims of the occupants who obtained purchased certificates were upheld. Meanwhile, the declarant passed away, and his legal heirs, the present revision petitioners, were substituted in the proceedings. They filed an additional counter raising objections to the report of the Tahsildar. The Board again conducted an enquiry through the authorised officer over the objections raised by legal heirs of the declarant.

5. The authorised officer after conducting enquiry and verification of the documents filed a report stating that transactions covered by the registered documents had been made by the declarant to escape from the ceiling provision, and he continued in possession of such lands as on 01.01.1970. Transactions covered by the documents, some of them after 01.01.1970, but, all of them, after 01.04.1964, after the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963 were null and void under Section 84 of the Act, was, in short, the conclusion formed by the authorised officer on the enquiry conducted. Again the legal heirs of the declarant filed objection to the report of the authorised officer reiterating the challenge made over the inclusion of some lands covered by the draft statement and also claiming exemption over some other lands to exclude them in fixing the ceiling limit. No material was produced by the legal heirs of the declara