Judgment :- 1. The writ petitioner filed a ceiling return under S.85 (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act before the Land Board, Trivandrum relating to the lands owned and held by him. The Land Board transferred the said return to the Taluk Land Board, Meenachil for enquiry and disposal. The Taluk Land Board after notice to the petitioner prepared a draft statement under R.10 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 and a copy of the same was served on the petitioner together with a notice in the prescribed form. The petitioner filed his objections against that draft statement. Those objections were enquired into by the Taluk Land Board and ultimately it passed orders on 14 111975 determining under S.85 (8) of the Act, the extent and other particulars of the lands to be surrendered by the petitioner. As per that order the petitioner was called upon to surrender from his possession an extent of 40.35.85 acres which included an extent of 5.16 acres of land comprised in Sy. No. 681/1 of Meenachil Village. 2. At no time when the proceedings were before the Taluk Land Board did the writ petitioner indicate his choice regarding the land which he proposed to surrender by way of excess land. The stand that he had taken before the Taluk Land Board was that there was no "excess land" in his possession since several of his lands were in the occupation of tenants. This contention was found against by the Taluk Land Board and it was on that basis that the extent of the excess land to be surrendered by the petitioner was determined. The petitioner did not take any steps to canvass the legality or correctness of the decision of the Taluk Land Board calling upon him to surrender the specified items of land. Some of the persons who were tenants in respect of the petitioner's land preferred C.R.Ps. before this Court challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Taluk Land Board negativing such tenancy right and holding their lands in the possession of the writ petitioner himself. Those Revision Petitions were dismissed by this Court on 20-41976. 3. It is alleged by the petitioner that subsequent to the dismissal of the revision petitions filed by the persons who claimed tenancy rights, he filed a petition dated 29-5-1976 before the Taluk Land Board, Meenachil of which Ext. Those Revision Petitions were dismissed by this Court on 20-41976. 3. It is alleged by the petitioner that subsequent to the dismissal of the revision petitions filed by the persons who claimed tenancy rights, he filed a petition dated 29-5-1976 before the Taluk Land Board, Meenachil of which Ext. P-1 is said to be a copy requesting that he should be permitted to exercise his choice in the matter of surrender of excess lands in the manner set out in that petition. The grievance put forward in this writ petition is that the Taluk Land Board has not taken any steps to dispose of the petition evidenced by Ext. P-1 and that action is being taken in the meantime to assign away the lands taken possession of from the petitioner in implementation of the direction contained in the Land Board's order determining the extent and identity of the excess land to be surrendered by the petitioner. 4. The Chairman of the Taluk Land Board, Meenachil has filed a detailed counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents. It is categorically stated therein that the petitioner's allegation that a petition of which Ext. P-1 purports to be a copy was presented by his Advocate before the Taluk Land Board is not correct and that no such petition has been received from the petitioner. It is also submitted in the counter-affidavit that there is no provision in the Act enabling the Taluk Land Board to receive or dispose of such a petition after an order under S.85 determining the extent and particulars of the lands to be surrendered has already been passed. I see no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement contained in the counter-affidavit that the original of Ext. P-1 has not been received in the office of the Taluk Land Board. Hence, the petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the application evidenced by Ext. P-1 cannot be granted. 5. There is also force in the contention put forward by the respondents that the Act and the Rules do not provide for any such petition for exercise of option being entertained by the Taluk Land Board subsequent to the passing of an order determining the extent and other particulars of the excess lands to be surrendered by a person. 5. There is also force in the contention put forward by the respondents that the Act and the Rules do not provide for any such petition for exercise of option being entertained by the Taluk Land Board subsequent to the passing of an order determining the extent and other particulars of the excess lands to be surrendered by a person. S.85(2) contemplates that the choice must be indicated by the person concerned in the statement that he is required to file within a period of three months from the date notified under S.85(3). Reliance was, however, placed by the petitioner's counsel on the Explanation to R.21 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules wherein it is indicated that the option can be exercised even after the passing of an order under S.85(8) of the Act. I do not find it possible to uphold this argument. R.21 lays down the procedure to be followed where any land indicated in the statement filed by the holder under sub-section (2) of S.85 as land proposed to be surrendered by him is to be taken possession of without waiting for the final determination to be made under S.85(5). It is in that context that the explanation to that rule states that where the lands proposed to be surrendered have not been indicated in the statement already filed under Sub-s. (2) of S.85, but the person has subsequently furnished another statement in writing specifying the lands proposed to be surrendered, such later statement may be acted upon for the purpose of obtaining an interim surrender of lands so specified by him. There is mining in this rule which supports the petitioner's contention that even after the order passed by the Taluk Land Board under S 85(5) determining the extent and particulars of lands to be. surrendered by a person it is open to such person to exercise his choice by intimating the Land Board about the identity of the land which he proposes to surrender. The acceptance of the petitioner's contention would clearly have the effect of rendering the entire scheme of S.83 to 85 unworkable because the resultant position will be that there would be no finality about the determination nude by the Land Board specifying the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered by the person and the said crucial matter would be left in a state of perpetual uncertainty. That undoubtedly cannot be the intention of the Legislature; further, it is specifically laid down by Subsection (1) of S.86 that on the determination of the extent and other particulars of the lands, the ownership or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered under S.85, such ownership or possession or both, as the case may be, of the land, shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. On the passing of the order under S.85 (5) the statutory vesting of ownership and possession automatically takes effect subject only to the result of any revision petition that may be filed to this Court under S.103 or a modification of the order effected by the Taluk Land Board itself under Sub-section (8) or (9) of S.8. In all other respects the said determination made by the Taluk Land Board is to be treated as final. 6. Hence, it is not possible to accept the petitioner's contention that even after the Taluk Land Board had made the determination under S.85 (5) there was still a right vested in the petitioner to exercise a choice as to which lands he would retain and which he would surrender and that the Taluk Land Board was bound to entertain a representation indicating the petitioner's choice regarding the lands which he proposed to surrender. The Original Petition is therefore devoid of merits and it is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs. Dismissed.