Judgment :- 1. In this revision petition, the petitioner's one complaint is that certain lands which are in the possession of tenants are treated as lands in his possession and the ceiling area fixed. According to the petitioner 5 1/2 acres of land are in the possession of tenants. In the return filed by him in annexure H, he mentioned that four persons are in possession of these lands as tenants from 1964-65. The matter was enquired into by the District Collector. The enquiry revealed that the above-mentioned 51/2 acres is owned and possessed by the petitioner himself. So, in the draft statement prepared and served on the petitioner this 5 1/2 acres was included as lands held by the petitioner. He was given an opportunity to substantiate his case that this area is held by his tenants. No attempt was made to prove the tenancy. Consequently, in the order of the Taluk Land Board this area is treated as land held by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner's counsel was not able to point out any irregularity or illegality in the conclusion of the Taluk Land Board. The persons who are said to be tenants were not examined by the petitioner. He himself stated in the return filed that they are his workers for a long time. The lease itself is stated to have been given only in 1964 and 1965. Any voluntary transfer after 16th September, 1963, has to be treated as invalid under S.84 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. S.74 also provides that a lease created after the commencement of the Act (1- 4 - 1964) is invalid. Hence the conclusion of the Taluk Land Board to treat this 5 acres 50 cents as lands held by the petitioner is correct. 3. Another objection to the order of the Taluk Land Board is regarding the extent of the land exempted under S.81 of the Act. 50 cents in S. No. 409/2 was claimed for exemption under S.81 (1) (m) being covered by a tank, house and out-house etc. Another 50 cents in the same survey number was stated to be uncultivable land, thodu and bunds, also to be exempted under S.81 (1) (m) of the Act. In the draft statement only one cent was reckoned as eligible for exemption being the area occupied by a well in the above survey number. Another 50 cents in the same survey number was stated to be uncultivable land, thodu and bunds, also to be exempted under S.81 (1) (m) of the Act. In the draft statement only one cent was reckoned as eligible for exemption being the area occupied by a well in the above survey number. This was objected to by the petitioner in bis objection to the draft statement. It is seen that this draft statement was forwarded to the authorised officer for enquiry and report. He recommended an exemption of another one cent for the out-house and further recommended exemption of a bund, five cents in extent, used as a footpath leading to the out-house. This was accepted by the Taluk Land Board and thus an area of another six cents was also exempted under S.81 of the Act. The main complaint of the petitioner is, in passing the order the Taluk Land Board has relied on a report submitted by the authorised officer without giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to prove that the report in this respect cannot be accepted. Incidentally, it was contended that the authorised officer's report is not acceptable in evidence since he did not give notice of his proposed enquiry to the petitioner. 4. For carrying out the ceiling provisions of the Act it is open to the Taluk Land Board to call for any information which in its opinion is relevant for determining the ceiling area and the excess land to be surrendered by any person. Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules prescribes the procedure to be followed by the respective authorities. When a return is submitted under S.85 by any person its correctness has to be verified by the Board. R.9 and 9 (a) provide that the statement should be forwarded to the Taluk Tahasildar for verification. He may require certain information to find out whether the various particulars in the statement are correct or not. For that he may have to make a local inspection or enquiry or he may have to call for information from any person regarding the particulars mentioned in the statement. S.105 confers the necessary power to such officers to call upon any person to furnish the information regarding the members of the family, the extent of the land held by any person, and the classification of the land etc. S.105 confers the necessary power to such officers to call upon any person to furnish the information regarding the members of the family, the extent of the land held by any person, and the classification of the land etc. R.138 to 141 of the Tenancy Rules regulate the manner in which such information can be gathered. Whenever an enquiry is to be held in respect of such information necessary for the implementation of 'the provisions of the Act, the authorised officer has to fix a date and issue a notice to the person concerned. In a case where the information called for is not furnished or the officer is not satisfied about the truth of that information, he may collect the information in such manner as he deems fit. But, before he reports to the Taluk Land Board on the matter he must issue notice and a reasonable opportunity must be given to the person whose statement is the subject matter of verification. This is expressed in, and in any way implicit from a reading of, S.105(2) read with R.138 to 141 of the Tenancy Rules. The report that the authorised officer files is evidence which the Taluk Land Board is entitled to look into and rely. That is evidence even without examining the officer who submits the report; see S.105 A(2) which is in the following terms: - "The Land Tribunal or the Land Board may depute any officer appointed under sub-section (1) to make local enquiry, investigation or inspection and to collect any data, and the report and the records submitted by such officer may be used without examining him as evidence in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal or the Land Board." It is on the basis of such evidence that the Taluk Land Board prepares a draft statement as per R.10 of the Ceiling Rules A right is conferred under R.12 to file objection to the draft statement; and R.13 provides for a consideration of the objections and an enquiry. If any further information is collected or called for the proviso to R.13 requires the Taluk Land Board to afford a reasonable opportunity to the person who may be affected by the further report of verification. Sub-rule 2 of R.13 read with S.101(4) of the Act provides for the power and procedure relating to the exemption of the lands under S.81 of the Act. Sub-rule 2 of R.13 read with S.101(4) of the Act provides for the power and procedure relating to the exemption of the lands under S.81 of the Act. That sub-rule provides that a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to the person interested in such exemption before a a decision is taken. It is implicit in the content of reasonable opportunity of being heard that the particulars that are proposed to be relied on are brought to the knowledge of the person against whom these particulars are to be used. That means the report of the authorised officer regarding the nature and extent of the land and the reasons for limiting the extent must be brought to the notice of the person concerned. Unless this report is prepared with notice it will not be possible for the person concerned to bring to the notice of the officer who makes the local investigation the particulars required for granting the exemption or the extent of the land which is to be exempted. After an adverse report is filed without notice, if the person affected is called upon to prove that the report is incorrect he may not succeed without taking again the authorities concerned to the lands claimed for exemption and showing their situation, nature, location and particulars of the house and other buildings tank, well etc. That means there is a duplication of the whole process of verification and waste of time. On the other band if the report is prepared with notice consideration of the objection under R.13 will be easier and proper. Hence the R.138 to 141 are mandatory and have to be complied with before a report is submitted by the authorised officer. 5. Coming to the facts of this case it is seen that when the petitioner claimed exemption of 50 cents under S.81(1)(m) of the Act in his objection, a report was filed by the authorised officer that only 2 cents need be exempted. It is not shown that this report was prepared after notice. Therefore, the report cannot be accepted to come to the conclusion that only 2 cents of land is required to be exempted as house site under S.81(1)(m) of the Act. It is not shown that this report was prepared after notice. Therefore, the report cannot be accepted to come to the conclusion that only 2 cents of land is required to be exempted as house site under S.81(1)(m) of the Act. Hence, the decision of the Taluk Land Board regarding the extent of the land to be exempted under S.81 requires reconsideration and to that extent, therefore, the order of the Taluk Land Board has to be set aside. 6. In the result, the order of the Taluk Land Board in so far as it relates to the exemption of land in Sy. No. 409/2 is vacated and the case is sent back to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above The petitioner has claimed only 50 cents to be exempted. Therefore, the excess land to be surrendered by him now is determined provisionally as 5 acres 93 cents. If after the fresh consideration the extent of the land to be exempted is determined it is open to the Taluk Land Board to call upon the petitioner to surrender the remaining excess land if any also. The CRP. is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.