P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.@mdashThis is a Revision filed u/s 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The order challenged is that of the Taluk Land Board determining the ceiling area of the statutory family of one Krishnan Ezhuthassan. The Petitioners in the Revision are the legal representatives of the said Krishnan Ezauthassan.
2. Krishnan Ezhuthassan died on 6th May 1972. He was bound to file a statement either u/s 85 or u/s 85A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. He did not file a statement before his death. Hence his legal representatives were bound to file a statement. The estate devolved on the legal represent a lives subject to the obligation under the Act. This is clarified by Section 85 (6 A) of the Act and is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in
3. Krishnan Ezhuthassan died leaving behind, his widow, four sons and four daughters. The heirs in a body were therefore bound to file the statement. On behalf of the heirs, the widow of Krishnan Ezhuthassan filed the statement. This was obviously in discharge of the obligation of all the heirs and in a representative capacity. Some of the children had attained majority as on 1st January 1970 and hence did not form part of the statutory family of Krishnan Ezhuthassan as defined in the Act. But that did not make any difference, since all the legal representatives were bound to file the statement and the widow had filed it on behalf of all of them. The concept of statutory family was relevant only to determine the extent which Krishnan Ezhuthassan was entitled to hold as on 1st January 1970 and which alone would devolve on all his heirs, including the major children.
4. The statement filed by the widow Kunhi Lakshmi Amma, on behalf of all the heirs specified in column 2 eliciting the information "whether the statement relates to an adult unmarried person or family or any other person" that the statement relates to the joint family consisting of the widow and all the children. A draft statement prepared in terms of Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules was served on the widow and all the major children of Krishnan Ezhuthassan viz., Kunhi Lakshmi Amma (widow), Govindan Kutty(son), Parukutty, Pankajakshy, Ambujakshy and Thankam (daughters). The notices were acknowledged. The three other children, sons, Mukundan, Sasidharan and Premachandran were minors as on 1st January 1970 and formed part of the statutory family consisting of Krishnan Ezhuthassan and their mother. The draft statement indicated that the total extent held by Krishnan Ezhuthassan was 23.36 9/20 acres, the extent eligible for exemption was 0.65 9/20 acres, the ceiling area that can be held was 14.55 21/32 acres and the extent to be surrendered was 8.15 11/32 acres.
5. Objections were filed by Kunhi Lakshmy Amma and three of her sons. Govindan Kutty and the daughters did not even file objections to the draft statement. The main objection raised was that the 23.36 9/20 acres shown as the total extent belonged to the joint family and the children who had attained majority prior to 1st January 1970 were entitled to shares therein. Of course, this objection has to be understood as a plea that the eldest Govindan Kutty also had a share in the properties since the other major children (as on 1st January 1970) were all married daughters.
6. After enquiring into the objections and after hearing the parties, the Taluk Land Board, Thalappally passed a final order dated 4th November 1975 determining that the heirs of Krishnan Ezhuthassan were bound to surrender an extent of 8.15 acres of land. This was obviously after overruling the plea that the total extent belonged to a Hindu joint family. It was held that the total extent held was 23.36 acres. The land liable to be exempted u/s 81 of the Act was 65 cents. The area that could be retained as within the ceiling area as defined in the Act was 14.56 acres. The balance liable to be surrendered was 8.15 acres. This order was challenged in Revision by Kunhi Lakshmi Amma in C.R.P. 2626 of 1975. The main plea raised was that the major sons were entitled to shares in the property and hence the Taluk Land Board was in error in holding that the entire lands must be treated as being held by Krishnan Ezhuthassan as on 1st January 1970. It is significant to notice that the affidavit in support of the petition for stay, C.M.P. 1961 of 1975 dated 15th December 1975 was sworn to by Govindan Kutty, eldest son of Krishnan Ezhuthassan and Kunhi Lakshmi Amma; By order dated 10th December 1976, this Court overruled the various contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner other than a claim for an additional exemption of 40 cents of land as part of the residential house of Krishnan Ezhuthassan. By order dated 10th December 1976 this Court confirmed the order of the Taluk Land Board with the modification that an additional exemption of 40 cents was also liable to be granted u/s 81(1)(m) of the Act and reducing the surplus area to be surrendered to that extent. The Taluk Land Board was directed to pass the necessary consequential orders fixing the identity of the lands to be surrendered after giving an opportunity to Kunhi Lakshmi Amma to exercise her option in respect of the lands to be surrendered. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court by Kunhi Lakshmi Amma by filing Petition for Special Leave (Civil) No. 3594 of 1977. The main contention urged in the Petition for Special Leave was that it ought to have been found that the transfer of 5.46 acres of land by Krishnan Ezhuthassan on 18th December 1967 was valid under the Kerala Land Reforms Act according to Section 84 of the Act as it stood then in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M.J. Thomas, 1976 KLT 566 (S.C.). The Supreme Court granted special leave and the appeal was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 2623 of 1977. By judgment dated 2nd May 1979 the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of this Court by rejecting the contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant before the Supreme Court. Thus both the plea that the property was held by a joint family and the plea that the transfer of 5.46 acres of land by Krishnan Ezhuthassan in the year 1967 was valid stood finally over-ruled as against the body of legal representatives of Krishnan Ezhuthassan.
7. Thereafter on 6th December 1979 Govindan Kutty the eldest son of Krishnan Ezhuthassan who did not file an objection to the draft statement served on him and who had flied an affidavit in support of the petition for stay in C.R.P 2626 of 1975 before this Court filed a suit O.S. 564 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge''s Court of Trichur for partition of the properties involved in the ceiling case and seeking to restrain the State of Kerala and the Taluk Land Board and the authorities under the Act from taking possession of the land determined to be the extent held in excess of the ceiling area as per the adjudication in ceiling case T.L.B. 951/1979. The other legal representatives of Krishnan Ezhuthassan were impleaded as Defendants 1 to 8. The Taluk Land Board, Thalappally was impleaded as Defendant No. 9 and the State of Kerala was impleaded as Defendant No. 10. The suit was resisted by the Taluk Land Board and the State. The plea in that suit was also that the properties were the properties of the joint family and the adjudication by the Taluk Land Board was not binding on the estate of the Plaintiff in the suit. The Subordinate Judge''s Court, Trichur by judgment and decree dated 6th December 1983 dismissed the suit in so far as it related to the challenge to the decision of the Taluk Land Board which stood affirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court. The other heirs not having appeared or objected to a division, the trial court granted a decree for partition of the properties other than the properties ordered to be surrendered by the Taluk Land Board in is proceeding ceiling case T.L.B. No. 951/1979. Feeling aggrieved by this decree the Plaintiff, the eldest son of Krishnan Ezhuthassan filed an appeal before the District Court as A.S. 79 of 1984. In that appeal also there was no interference with the decision of the trial court ordering division of only properties other than the properties covered by the order for surrender.
8. The Taluk Land Board implemented the order of this Court in C.R.P. 2626 of 1975 as affirmed in Civil Appeal No. 2623 of 1977 and identified the 7.75 acres of land to be surrendered by the heirs of Krishnan Ezhuthassan. The said order was not questioned by any of the heirs of Krishnan Ezhuthassan and the same became final.
9. Thereafter a farce as it were was enacted. One of the married daughters of Krishnan Ezhuthassan who had no right in the property other than the right derived by her on the death of Krishnan Ezhuthassan on 6th May 1972, after 1st January 1970 the relevant date purported to file an application u/s 85(8) of the Act before the Taluk Land Board seeking to get the final order of the Taluk Land Board as affirmed by the Supreme Court reopened. It is to be noted here that the said daughter had been served with a copy of the draft statement prepared in the case and she had acknowledged the same but bad not chosen even to file an objection to the said draft statement before the original final order was made by the Taluk Land Board. Her contention was that she had not been heard while passing the original order The Taluk Land Board rejected that application, by order dated 6th August 1979. The said daughter Parukutty filed C.R.P. 2143 of 1979. This Court purported to allow that Revision and remanded the application to the Taluk Land Board directing the Taluk Land Board to consider the petition filed u/s 85(8) of the Act afresh in accordance with law. Thereafter the eldest son Govindan Kutty who had earlier conducted the revision on behalf of his mother in this Court the decision in which was affirmed by the Supreme Court and who had also approached the civil court and failed to get the order of the Taluk Land Board invalidated also filed an application u/s 85(8) of the Act. The contention raised by Govindan Kutty was that the properties were the properties of a joint family and not that of Krishnan Ezhuthassan, a plea that had been specifically raised earlier on behalf of the heirs by the widow of Krishnan Ezhuthassan and which had been overruled by the Taluk Land Board and which had been specifically rejected by the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal. Parukutty the daughter in her turn set up the ease that she was also entitled to a share in the property though a married daughter. Both of them reiterated the case that the assignment by Krishnan Ezhuthassan of 5.46 acres of Land in favour of the husband of Parukutty before 1st January 1970 but after 15th September 1963 (there appears to be some confusion about the actual year) must be treated as valid, a contention raised before the Supreme Court specifically and overruled by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2623 of 1977. Even without any legal evidence and ignoring the finality of the earlier decision rendered and its binding nature on all the heirs of Krishnan Ezhuthassan including the two applicants u/s 85(8) of the Act, and purporting to accept even without any evidence the alleged copies of unregistered documents which had been earlier produced but not accepted by the Taluk Land Board, the Taluk Land Board proceeded to uphold the plea that the share of the eldest son Govindan Kutty was eligible to be excluded from Computation and reducing the total extent liable to be surrendered and fixing the same only as 2.67.760 acres. The Taluk Land Board rejected the contention that the sale of 5.46 acres of land can be deemed to be valid in term�s of section 84 of the Act, and refused to exclude 5.46 acres from computation. It was thus that the land liable to be surrendered was reduced from 7.75 acres to 2.67.760 acres quite illegally and improperly. But feeling aggrieved by this direction to surrender 2.67.760 acres of land, the, legal representatives of Krishnan Ezhuthassan have filed this Civil Revision Petition. For some inexplicable reasons the State is not seen to have filed any Revision challenging the revised order of the Taluk Land Board.
10. In the Revision, in addition to challenging some of the factual findings of the Taluk Land Board, a ground was taken that the transaction dated 16th May 1968 relating to 5.46 acres of land ought to have been treated as valid by the Taluk Land Board in terms of Section 84 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and the Taluk Land Board should have excluded that extent from computation of the total extent held by Krishnan Ezhuthassan as on the appointed day. When the Revision came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge the only question that is seen to have been raised was regarding the validity of this alienation of 5.46 acres of land covered by Ext. A-7 sale deed. It was contended before the learned Judge that though the question was covered against the Petitioners by: a decision or the Full Bench in Ramanatha Reddiar v. Taluk Land Board, 1985 KLT 412 (F.B.) the decision of the Full Bench required reconsideration in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Thomas, 1976 KLT 566 (S.C.) It may at once be observed that this contention was not available to the legal representatives of Krishnan Ezhuthassan in view of the fact that this specific contention in respect of this transaction was raised before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2623 of 1977 relying on the decision in State of Kerala v. Thomas 1976 KLT 566 (S.C.) and the said contention had been overruled by the Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal. This fact was obviously not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge with the result that the learned Single Judge acceded to the request on behalf of the legal representatives and adjourned the case for being heard by a Division Bench in terms of Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act for considering the correctness of the decision of the Full Bench in Ramanatha Reddiar v. Taluk Land Board, 1985 KLT 412 (F.B.). When the matter came up before a Division Bench, the Division Bench referred the case to a Full Bench observing that in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Thomas, 1976 KLT 566 (S.C.), the view taken by the Full Bench in Ramanatha Reddiar v. Taluk Land Board, 1985 KLT 412 (F.B.) required reconsideration. When the matter came up before a Full Bench, the Full Bench in turn placed the matter before a larger Bench. That is how the matter has come up before us.
11. In this case we may straightaway say that it is not open to the Petitioners to raise this question in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2623 of 1977. This contention had been specifically raised before the Supreme Court in the appeal filed before that court with particular reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Thomas 1976 KLT 566 (S.C.). In fact it can be seen that this was the main contention raised before the Supreme Court in the appeal. As noticed already, the statement was filed by the widow of Krishnan Ezhuthassan for and on behalf of all the legal heirs of Krishnan Ezhuthassan. The draft statement prepared in the case had been served on all the legal representatives especially the major children including the two applicants u/s 85(8) of the Act. It was thereafter that the determination was made and the matter was pursued before this Court in revision. It was thereafter that the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court and an adjudication obtained regarding the validity of this transaction. In our view the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2623 of 1977 is binding on all the legal representatives of Krishnan Ezhuthassan and it is not open to them all over again to raise that contention. Secondly in our view two of the legal representatives of Krishnan Ezhuthassan who had the obligation to file the statement on the death of Krishnan Ezhuthassan and on whose behalf the original statement was filed by their mother and on whom the draft statement prepared under Rule 12/1) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules had been served under acknowledgement had no competence to file applications u/s 85(8) of the Act for getting a re-adjudication of this question already covered against the legal representatives by the decision of the Supreme Court in the ceiling case.
12. Section 84 of the Act treats as null and void a transaction by a person if it is effected after 15th September 1963 and if it is not by way of partition or by transfer in favour of a person who was a tenant of the holding before 27th July 1960 and who continued to be so on the date of the transaction. The transaction was to be treated as invalid only if the person was holding land in excess of the ceiling area. The Parent Act which came into force on 1st April 1964 had defined ceiling area differently from the ceiling area as defined by the Act as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969. For removal of doubts as to which was the ceiling area that was referred to in Section 84 of the Act, Section 84(3) was enacted clarifying that the expression ''ceiling area'' occurring in Sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 82 of the Act was the ceiling area specified in Section 82(1) of the Act as amended by the Amending Act of 1969. The Taluk Land Board held in the case on hand that Krishnan Ezhuthassan held lands in excess of the ceiling area on the date of the transfer in question and hence the transfer was invalid and it had to be ignored for the purpose of calculating the ceiling area of Krishnan Ezhuthassan. The question on merits is whether this view taken by the Taluk Land Board is sustainable or not.
13. The view taken by the Taluk Land Board is clearly consistent with Section 84 of the Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in Mathew v. Taluk Land Board, 1979 KLT 601 (S.C.) [reported also as
14. Kerala Land Reforms Act, hereinafter called the Parent Act, was brought into force on 1st April 1964. The ceiling provisions were not enforced by the issuance of a Notification u/s 83 of the Act. But the ceiling area was defined u/s 82 of the Act as it stood. The Parent Act was subsequently amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, Act 35 of 1969. Section 82 of the Act prescribing the ceiling area was amended by reducing the extent that could be held as land within the ceiling area for different categories of persons as defined in the Act. Section 83 of the Act providing that no person shall hold land in excess of the ceiling area, was also brought into force with effect from 1st January 1970. In view of the difference in the definition of ceiling area between the Parent Act and the Act as amended by Act 35 of 1969, some difficulties were felt in the context of Section 84 of the Act invalidating transfers subsequent to the date of the publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963 on 15th September 1963. Sub-section 3 of Section 84 was inserted by the Amending Act 17 of 1972 reading as follows:
For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the expression ''ceiling area'' in Sub-sections 1 and 2 means the ceiling area specified in Sub-section 1 of Section 82 as amended by Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, Act 35 of 1969.
The argument on behalf of the State was that by virtue of Sub-section 3 of Section 84, any alienation after 15th September 1963 has to be tested with reference to ceiling area as defined in Section 82 of the Parent Act as amended by Act 35 of 1969. The question particularly came up for decision before the Full Bench in Narayana Pattar v. State of Kerala, 1977 KLT 64 (F.B.) . It was argued before the Full Bench that Sub-section 3 of Section 84 of the Act as amended came into force only with effect from 2nd November 1972 and it could not have any application in respect of transfers effected prior to 2nd November 1972. The said argument was overruled by the majority by stating that Sub-section 3 of Section 84 was merely declaratory in nature and it compelled the testing of any alienation after 15th September 1963 with reference to the definition of ceiling area as contained in the Act as amended by Act 35 of 1969 in the light of the exceptions contained in Section 84 of the Act. V. P Gopalan Nambiar, J. (as he then was) disagreed with the majority by taking the view that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala V. M.J. Thomas, 1976 KLT 566 (S.C.) which had affirmed the decision of this court in Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1973 KLT 701 it ought to be held that the validity of a transfer u/s 84 of the Act after 15th September 1963 and before 1st January 1970, ought to be tested in the light of the definition of ceiling area as contained in the Parent Act. The correctness of the decision in Narayana Pattar v. State of Kerala, 1977 KLT 64 (F.B.) directly arose before the Supreme Court in the decision in Mathew v. Taluk Land Boards, 1979 KLT 601 (S.C.). Point No. 3 formulated in the decision related to this aspect. The Supreme Court, after discussing the relevant aspects, came to the conclusion that Sub-section 3 of Section 84 of the Act as inserted on 2nd November 1972 was one clarifying the meaning of the expression ''ceiling area'' with reference to which certain voluntary transfers are to be invalidated and hence it was clearly retrospective as it was meant to invalidate the transfers made after 15th September 1963, when the Kerala Land Reforms Bill 1963 was published. The Supreme Court specifically approved the majority view taken in Narayana Pattar v. State of Kerala, 1977 KLT 64 (F.B.) and obviously disapproved the observations by V.P. Gopalan Nambiar, J. (as he then was) in that case. It was in this context that the Full Bench in Ramanatha Reddiar v. Taluk Land Board, 1985 KLT 412 (F.B.) relying on the decision in Mathew v. Taluk Land Board, 1979 KLT 601 (S.C.) held that validity of a transfer u/s 84 of the Act ought to be tested with reference to the ceiling area as defined in the Act as amended by Act 35 of 1969. It may be noted here that in his dissenting judgment in Narayana Pattar''s case 1977 KLT 64 (F.B.) V.P. Gopalan Nambiar, J. (as he then was) specifically relied on the decision in State of Kerala v. Thomas 1976 KLT 566 (S.C.). The reference order in this case refers to the decision in State of Kerala v. Thomas 1976 KLT 566 (S.C.) to suggest that the question requires to be considered afresh in the light of the observations in that decision. With respect, we feel that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mathew v. Taluk Land Board 1979 KLT 601 (S.C.) specifically approving the majority view in Narayana Pattar''s case 1977 KLT 64 (F.B.) and thus disapproving the adoption of the ratio of the decision in State of Kerala v. Thomas 1976 KLT 566 (S.C.) to test the validity of transfers u/s 84 of the Act, there could be no doubt regarding the correctness of the decision in Ramanatha Reddiar v. Taluk Land Board 1985 KLT 412 (F.B) which had particularly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mathew v. Taluk Land Board 1979 KLT 601 (S.C.).
15. What learned Counsel for the Petitioners attempted to argue was that in Mathew v. Taluk Land Board 1979 KLT 601 (S.C.) and in Ramanatha Reddiar v. Taluk Land Board 1985 KLT 412 (F.B) there is no specific reference to the decision in State of Kerala v. Thomas 1976 KLT 566 (S.C.). This submission may be correct to the extent it goes. But it is clear that the Supreme Court in Mathew v. Taluk Land Board 1979 KLT 601 (S.C.) had specifically approved the view of the majority in Narayana Pattar''s Case 1977 KLT 64 (F.B.) and had obviously disapproved the view in the dissenting judgment based almost solely on the ratio of the decision in State of Kerala v. Thomas 1976 KLT 566 (S.C.). It cannot therefore be said that the Supreme Court has not considered in Mathew v. Taluk Land Board 1979 KLT 601 (S.C.) the impact of its prior decision in State of Kerala v. Thomas 1976 KLT 566 (S.C.). Obviously, the decision in State of Kerala v. Thomas 1976 KLT 566 (S.C.) related to the case of a land falling within the exempted category in terms of Section 81 of the Act. The exemptions in respect of kayal lands which was available until the amendment of the Parent Act by Act 35 of 1969, was taken away only by modifying the exemption contained in Section 81(1)(1) of the Act omitting the same with effect from 1st January 1970. What was held in State of Kerala v. Thomas 1976 KLT 566 (S.C.) affirming the decision of the High Court in Joseph v. State of Kerala 1973 KLT 701 was only that the dropping of the exemption by Act 35 of 1969 did not have retrospective operation and hence the sale of kayal land prior to 1st January 1970, could not be treated to be invalid by applying Section 84 of the Act. What was held by the Supreme Court in Mathew v. Taluk Land Board 1979 KLT 601 (S.C.) was that since Section 84 (1) of the Act invalidates transfers effected after 15th September 1963, all alienations ought to be tested in the light of the expression ''ceiling area'' as clarified by Sub-section 3 of Section 84 of the Act and it could not but be held that the ceiling area ought to be understood as defined by Act 35 of 1969, even to test the validity of a transaction effected prior to 1st January 1970. Obviously, the position relating to assignment of an exempted category stood on a footing different from an assignment of non-exempted category of land after 15th September 1963 but before 1st January 1970 with reference to the ceiling area of a person or a statutory family, which is controlled by the terms of Section 84 of the Act.
16. In any view, the Supreme Court having clearly laid down this proposition in Mathew v. Taluk Land Board 1979 KLT 601 (S.C.) and having specifically approved the majority view in Narayana Pattar''s case 1977 KLT 64 (F.B), it is not open to us to accept the argument that Section 84(3) of the Act should not be applied while testing the validity of transfers of land, not coming within the exceptions provided by Section 84 of the Act itself. We have therefore no hesitation in overruling the contention of the Petitioners that the decision in Ramanatha Reddiar v. Taluk Land Board 1985 KLT 412 (F.B.) requires reconsideration.
17. In the light of this position, it is clear that the alienations effected by Krishnan Ezhuthassan in favour of the husband of one of his daughters after 15th September 1963 has to be held to be invalid as was done by the Taluk Land Board.
18. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners attempted to argue that the order of the Taluk Land Board suffers from other errors which call for correction u/s 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. This plea cannot be accepted. Krishnan Ezhuthassan was alive as on 1st January 1970. He had not filed his statement as envisaged by Section 85 or Section 85A of the Act. His legal representatives had the obligation to file a statement. The widow had filed the statement on behalf of all the heirs. The claims had been adjudicated upon by the Taluk Land Board. The order of the Taluk Land Board was subsequently affirmed by this Court with a slight modification regarding the extent to be exempted. The decision of this Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The order for surrender of 7-75 acres of land became final. It is thereafter that the applications u/s 85(8) of the Act were filed by one daughter and one son of Krishnan Ezhuthassan. We have already indicated that the applications could not have been entertained to get over the final adjudication in the case. The prior order is binding on the estate which was in any event substantially represented. There is no case of fraud or collusion. In addition, the married daughter had obviously no independent right over the property as on 1st January 1970. The eldest son who was a major as on 1st January 1970, had really the obligation to file the statement in his capacity as legal representative of Krishnan Ezhuthassan. Taking advantage of his own omission to perform his statutory obligation, he cannot invoke Section 85(8) of the Act to get the order of the Taluk Land Board as affirmed by this Court and by the Supreme Court reopened on the pretext that he was not heard before the adjudication of the matter. He had in fact notice of the draft statement. He had acknowledged it. He was also substantially represented by the other legal representatives of Krishnan Ezhuthassan who had fought the matter more than once and had taken it upto the Supreme Court. But since no Revision has been filed by the state challenging the fresh decision rendered by the Taluk Land Board reducing the extent of land to be surrendered by the statutory family of Krishnan Ezhuthassan, we do not want to further comment on this aspect.
19. The other points regarding exemption and exclusion of an item sought to be raised by the Petitioners are merely findings of fact rendered by the Taluk Land Board. They are also concluded by the prior orders. Even assuming that the applications u/s 25(8) of the Act filed by the son and the married daughter of Krishnan Ezhuthassan are maintainable, we see no error of law committed by the Taluk Land Board in overruling those claims. The Taluk Land Board had also not failed to decide any question of law in that regard. We find that the order, if it has erred has erred, in favour of the Petitioners by reducing their obligation to surrender excess lands from 7.75 acres to 2.67.760 acres.
20. We thus see no merit in this Civil Revision Petition. The same is dismissed with costs.
