Judgment :- 1. By the order sought to be revised, the revision petitioner was directed under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,1 of 1964, to surrender 13.35 acres of land, that being excess land in his possession. 2.According to his counsel 15.43 acres of land has to be excluded in calculating the total extent of the lands in his possession as he had gifted it after 111970 to his two daughters. The Full Bench decision of this court in Ayidru v. State of Kerala 1976 KLT. 362 is against the position he contends tor. So the request for exclusion of 15.43 acres of land is refused. 3. The only other matter pressed by counsel was about exemption of the entire 29.75 acres of land found in the possession of the revision petitioner on the ground that he had mortgaged it to a Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank and so it deserved exemption under S.81 (1) (h) of the Act. Under S.1 (3) of Act 1 of 1964, the provisions of the Act should be taken to have come into force on such date as the Government may, by notification in the Gazette appoint. As per that provision S.81 came into force on 1- 41964. The exemption contained in S.81 (1) (h), as per the proviso to it, ceased to be operative on the expiry of three years after the commencement of the Act. Therefore, read along with S.1 (3) of the Act, it ceased to be operative from 313 1967. 4. It was argued that the ceiling provisions of the Act effectively came into force only on 111970, the date on which the amendment of Act 1 of 1964 by Act 35 of 1969 took effect, and that therefore the words "the commencement of this Act' occurring in the proviso to S.81 (1) (h) of the Act should be taken as intending 1-11970. Proviso to S.1 (2) of Act 35 of 1969, no doubt, provides that any reference in any provision of Act I of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 to "the commencement of this Act" should mean the coming into force of the provision of that Act, which was on 111970. Proviso to S.1 (2) of Act 35 of 1969, no doubt, provides that any reference in any provision of Act I of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 to "the commencement of this Act" should mean the coming into force of the provision of that Act, which was on 111970. But, in order that that proviso should apply to a particular provision that provision, should have been introduced in Act 1 of 1964 by the amendment Act, 35 of 1969, and the reference in the provision to the commencement of the Act should relate to the commencement of Act 35 of 1969. There is such specification in S.6B, 7B(1) and (2), 7C and 7D but not in S.81 of the Act. As S.81 came into force independently of the amendment Act, 35 of 1969, the provision contained in the proviso to S.1(2) of Act 35 of 1969 has no application to S.81. 5. The decision in Saidu Muhammad v. Bhanukuttan 1967 KLT. 947 was relied upon to show that in similar circumstances a different interpretation was adopted by this court. It was the provisions in S.74 and 117 of the Kerala Panchayats Act which came up for interpretation in that case. S.74 provides for recovery of arrears of tax, cess, rate, surcharge and tax. For their recovery limitation of three years is fixed under S.117 of the Act. While S.74 came into operation on 111962, S.117 came into operation only on 14 1966. Majority decision in Saidu Muhammad v, Bhanukuttan 1967 KLT. 947 was that as S.117 came into force only on 141966. S.74 also bad to be considered as having come into force only on that date because S.74 and 117 of the Panchayats Act formed parts or an integral whole and one part could not be brought into force without at the same time bringing the other. According to the learned judges Ss 74 and 117 together contained one provision and not different provisions and so one of those sections could not stand by itself. That was why it was held in Saidu Muhammad v. Bhanukuttan 1967 KLT. 947 that S.74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act came into force only on 141966. That is not the position here. S.81, 82 and 84 of Act 1 of 1964 had other purposes also to serve apart from their being useful for fixation of excess land to be surrendered. 947 that S.74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act came into force only on 141966. That is not the position here. S.81, 82 and 84 of Act 1 of 1964 had other purposes also to serve apart from their being useful for fixation of excess land to be surrendered. Thus ceiling of land had to be determined for ascertaining whether transfers made after 15 91963 were valid under S.84 of the Act and whether certain persons were small-holders entitled to resumption of land and for all those purposes the provisions in S.81 had to be applied. So it cannot be said that S.81 cannot stand independently of the provisions relating to surrender of excess land. The decision in Saidu Muhammad v. Bhanukuttan 1967 KLT. 947 is or no help. The request for exemption of 29.75 acres of land also is refused. In the result this revision petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Send the records to the concerned Taluk Land Board before December 10, 1976. Dismissed.