The court emphasized the need for a separate examination of each acquisition after 01/01/1970 to determine if it crossed the ceiling limit. It also clarified that the right to be heard under Section 85(8) is not limited to those who acquired rights before 01/01/1970, and any person interested in the land involved in the proceedings under Section 87 can file a petition under Section 85(8) to redress grievances. Additionally, the court found that the claim under Section 7E of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005 is not hit by the proviso to Section 84(4) of the Land Reforms Act, and the petitioners are entitled to protection under Section 7E.

K. HARILAL, J.

1. The petitioners are the claim petitioners under Section 85 (8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). The 1st petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of 3.50 acres of land in R.S. No.759/3A1A of Amarambalam Desom as per the registered partition deed No.1066 of 1987 of S.R.O., Nilambur. The 2nd petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of 3.50 acres of land in the same survey number as per the above said partition deed. The 3rd petitioner had purchased an extent of 3.92 acres of land as per the registered document No.2125/92 of S.R.O., Nilambur, from Kalarikkal Kamalavathy Amma who had title and possession over the land as per the same partition deed. The 3rd petitioner had transferred 0.50 acres of land to Mukkatta Masjid-ul-Huddha as per the document No. 2595 of 1995 and after the transfer, the 3rd petitioner is now in possession and enjoyment of the remaining 3.42 acres of land.

2. While so, the Taluk Land Board, Nilambur, initiated ceiling proceedings against one Sri.M.P.Thomas under Section 87 of the Act as per S.M.P No.1/2001 and passed an order dated 12/10/2001, directing him to surrender an extent of 9.08 acres of land as excess land in R.S. No.759/3A1A of Amarambalam Village, Nilambur Taluk, including the lands which are in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. In short, the above said properties which are in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners were included in the total account of the assessee M.P. Thomas.

3. The assessee M.P. Thomas purchased the property from one K.V. Mohammed as per the document No.1613 of 1971 and thereafter he sold 12.19 acres to Kalarikkal Sankaran Nair as per the document No.1180 of 1974 of S.R.O., Nilambur. Thereafter, Sankaran Nair purchased Janmam right of the property as per the purchase certificate No.20/1979 in S.M.P No.604/1978 of the Land Tribunal, Nilambur. Thereafter, he bequeathed the land to the petitioners 1 and 2 and one Kamalavathy Amma from whom the 3rd petitioner purchased the above said property by the registered Will No.57 of 1983 of SRO, Nilambur. Thus, after the death of Sankaran Nair, petitioners 1 and 2 and the said Kalarikkal Kamalavathi Amma were in possession and enjoyment of the land as per the registered Will. Subsequently, they partitioned the land as per the partition deed No.1066 of 1987 and as per the partition deed, the petitioners 1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of 3.50 acres of land each and the said Kalarikkal Kamalavathy Amma was in possession of 4.13 acres of land.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that ignoring all the above transactions effected after 1974, as per the impugned order, the lands including that belonging to the petitioners are directed to be surrendered as excess land, without making an enquiry as to whether the land was an excess land kept secretly in violation of the prohibition under Section 83 of the Act and sold away by the assessee. When the petitioners came to know the inclusion of their land, they filed a petition under Section 85(8) of the Act claiming to re-open the proceedings and to delete the lands belonging to them from the ceiling account of the assessee M.P. Thomas. After hearing the petitioners, the Taluk Land Board, by the impugned order, rejected the application. The legality and propriety of the said order is under challenge in this revision petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners advanced arguments challenging the findings in the impugned order. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order is erroneous, illegal and passed without making any enquiry as to whether the lands were possessed in excess of ceiling limit, kept concealed and subsequently sold away by the assessee. The Land Board miserably failed to consider the claim of the petitioners in its correct perspective. Without looking into the documents produced in evidence and appreciating the same in its correct perspective, the Taluk Land Board rejected