A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

1. The petitioners are the children of the declarant, Late A.K. Kunhalikutty Haji, in a ceiling proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short the ‘Act’). They impugn an order passed under Section 85(9) of the Act by the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady. By the impugned order, the Taluk Land Board decided to set aside an order passed under Section 85(5) and ordered to proceed afresh to determine the land to be surrendered by the declarant.

2. The total extent of the land shown in the return filed by the declarant was 2247.03.500 acres spread in different Taluks. In the draft statement accepted by the Taluk Land Board, the total land held by the declarant was determined at 780.84.500 acres. The land measuring 1466.19.000 acres in the verification statement shown was held by different tenants. The Taluk Land Board concluded the ceiling proceedings based on the draft statement as per the proceedings dated 01.06.2001 and the declarant was directed to surrender 29.24 1/2 acres.

3. A notice was served on the declarant as per Ext.P6 to reopen the proceedings under Section 85(9) of the Act. The specific grounds noticed in Ext.P6 are as follows:

“The lands in Sy. No. 283 and 304 of Aralam Village of Thalassery Taluk which was ordered to be taken over, is in adverse possession. The declarant had sold the lands to other persons, even-though it was opted to surrender the land comprised in the said Sy. Nos. Hence the lands in the direct possession of the Land Records of the declarant is liable to be surrendered.

2. TLB had exempted 46.00 acres of land in Sy. No. 64/2A of Peria Village of Mananthavady Taluk being cardamom plantation. It is now noticed that the exemption so granted was without sufficient evidence.

3. Tenancy right over an extent of 1466.19.00 acres of land has not been proved.”

4. Ext.P7 seems to be issued in continuation of Ext.P6. The specific grounds noticed in Ext.P7 are as follows:

1. To examine whether the lands ordered to surrender were in adverse possession.

2. For want of proof that an extent of 46.00 acres of land in Sy No. 64/2A of Peria Village is a cardamom plantation.

3. For want of proof that an extent of 1466.19 acres of land was tenanted.

5. The petitioners raised objection vide Ext.P8. By a cryptic order, objections were overruled and the Taluk Land Board had decided to proceed further. This order is produced as Ext.P9. The petitioners approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 36093 of 2003. Taking note of the nature of the order passed, this Court set aside the order and directed the Taluk Land Board to pass a fresh order after adverting to the objections of the petitioners. This is how, the impugned order has been passed. Ext.P11 is the impugned order.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued in extenso and submitted that the Taluk Land Board has no jurisdiction and power to set aside an order, which is not forming part of an order under Section 85(5) of the Act. According to the learned senior counsel, the order passed under Section 85(5) covers only such aspects referable to the draft statement and any proceedings/order prior to the stage of draft statement under Section 85(5) cannot be interfered under Section 85(9). The learned senior counsel submits that such proceedings prior to the stage of the draft statement can be subjected only to review power under Section 85(9A). He further argued that even if the Taluk Land Board is having jurisdiction to pass such order, it can exercise such power only on the basis of the enumerated grounds under Section 85(9). According to the learned senior counsel, in this case, any of the grounds as referred under Section 85(9) is not attracted.

7. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Taluk Land Board is having all the powers under Section 85(5) of the Act, even to interfere with the acceptance of the verification report submitted. It is submitted that the Taluk Land Board was sati