A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is filed by the respondents in the writ petition, the State of Kerala and its authorities challenging the judgment dated 18/08/2010 in W.P. (C) No. 35771/2010. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein challenging Ext.P4 and P5 and for a direction to the respondents not to proceed against the petitioner in the light of Exts.P1 to P3.

2. The short facts involved in the writ petition are:-

Petitioner claimed that his father Sri.Paily and his mother Smt.Eli were having ownership and possession in respect of 25.25 Acres of land in Kuppathode village in Mananthawady Taluk. Petitioner's father executed a gift deed bearing No. 2227/71 of S.R.O. Mananthawady by which an extent 13.50 Acres of land was gifted in favour of the petitioner. He filed ceiling return before the authorities under Section 85(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'KLR Act') on 14/12/1972. The Taluk Land Board (for short 'TLB') passed an order dated 28/06/1976 dropping the ceiling proceedings holding that the properties were acquired by the declarant on the basis of an invalid gift made after 01/01/1970 from his father. It was also mentioned that the properties are to be included in the account of the declarant's father. According to the petitioner, during 1998 he was served with a notice by the Taluk Land Board. It is stated that ceiling proceedings were re-opened and by order dated 29/12/1998 (Ext.P2), the ceiling proceedings were dropped. After six months, petitioner received another notice from the TLB and another order was passed on 29/06/1999 dropping further proceedings.

3. Petitioner again received another notice Ext.P4 by which he was called upon to appear before the TLB on 22/8/2007. Petitioner appeared before the TLB and after perusal of the documents, they issued an order dated 26/09/2007 stating that the petitioner is in possession of excess land having an extent of 2.65 Acres and he was directed to surrender the same as per Ext.P5. According to the petitioner, the entire ceiling proceedings having become final in terms of Exts.P1 to P3 and therefore, after the expiry of three years from the date of Exts.P2 and P3, no proceedings can be taken under Section 85(9A) of the KLR Act. It is also contended that reference to initiation of proceedings under Section 85(7) of the KLR Act has no application as suo motu proceedings can be initiated only in instances where no return has been filed.

4. Counter affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent inter-alia stating that Ext.P5 order has been passed in a suo motu proceedings initiated under Section 85(7) of the KLR Act. It is further submitted that Exts.P1, P2 or P3 will not confer any right on the petitioner. In Ext.P1, it has been clearly indicated that the petitioner's ceiling return was not taken for consideration as he claimed right on the basis of an invalid gift. In the Counter affidavit it was also stated that Exts.P2 and P3 were erroneously dropped by the TLB on a wrong assumption. It is also stated that at the time when Ext.P2 was passed, the TLB was not functioning. It was on reconstitution of the TLB that the case was informally dropped by Ext.P3 after giving the declarant an opportunity for being heard.

5. The learned Single Judge observed that in so far as Ext.P5 order is passed under Section 85(9A) of the KLR Act, it is not passed within the time as specified under the said provision and therefore initiation of proceedings which led to Ext.P5 is clearly barred by limitation. Hence Ext.P5 was quashed.

6. It is, impugning the aforesaid judgment, that this writ appeal has been field.

7. Heard Sri.C.R.Syamkumar, learned senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri.Sreekumar.G.Chelur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the legal heirs of the land holder.

8. Cross Objection is also filed