Judgment :- 1. This is a revision against an order directing the petitioners to surrender excess land determined under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act The return was filed by one Neelakantan Bhattathiripad representing his family consisting of himself and his wife. He filed a return on 13 12-1970 Subsequently he died. That was on 1511 1971. By his death his widow became the sole surviving member of the family. To the draft statement objections were raised by the legal representatives of the deceased that being his widow and children. They are the petitioners in this revision petition Mainly two objections were raised. One of them was that the declarant having died and the properties having devolved on his widow and children the obligation to file the return thereafter would be only under S.87 of the Act which is the provision requiring surrender by persons acquiring any land after the notified date by gift, purchase, mortgage with possession, lease, surrender or any other kind of transfer inter vivos or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise and inconsequence thereof, the total extent of land owned or held by such person exceeds the ceiling area. The purport of this contention appears to be that on the death of the person who is liable to surrender excess land held on 1-1-1970 the legal heirs are under no duty to surrender excess land and in their case the obligation to surrender land is only that envisaged under S.87. If that be the case and if the land inherited by each one of the heirs is less than the ceiling limit there could be no obligation to surrender. This assumption is not justified by the language of S.83 and S.85(1) of the Act. 2. The land is held by the family as defined in S.2 (14) of the Act. Such family in the case here consists of the husband and wife only and on the death of the husband the wife continues to represent the family as the sole surviving member thereof. Therefore the ultimate decision must relate to the extent of land to be held by that family and not by any legal representatives 3. Such family in the case here consists of the husband and wife only and on the death of the husband the wife continues to represent the family as the sole surviving member thereof. Therefore the ultimate decision must relate to the extent of land to be held by that family and not by any legal representatives 3. it may also be seen from S.83 as well as S.85(1) of the Act that the obligation to surrender excess land is with regard to excess owned or held by a person as on the notified date referred to in S.83. Therefore, if on 1-1-1970 any person holds land in excess of the ceiling area the obligation to surrender is incurred and that is what is to be determined. The determination under S.86(1) of the extent and other particulars of the lands to be surrendered under S.85 is the excess as on 1-1-1970. Therefore, the death of the declarant makes no difference in the obligation to surrender excess land. 4. The decision of the High Court of Bombay reported in Dadarao v. State, A. I. R 1970 Bombay 144, is of no assistance to the petitioner. As the decision itself indicates the provision there does not correspond to the provision in the Kerala Land Reforms Act and therefore that decision cannot be of any assistance in this case. It is seen that sub-section (2) of S.4 of the Act which the learned judges of the Bombay High Court were considering provided that subject to the provisions of the Act all land held by a person in excess of the ceiling area shall be deemed to be surplus land. It was contended that when a person who held excess land on the appointed day died before the conclusion of the enquiry and the determination of the ceiling and the properties passed on to his heirs their obligation to surrender excess land, if any, was not to be determined with reference to possession of excess land by the deceased This case is seen to be accepted in Para.16 of the judgment. This is based mainly upon the language of sub-section (2) of S.4 of the Bombay Act which it was observed, has no reference to the appointed day and does not provide that in spite of the death of the holder the determination of the surplus land will have reference to the appointed day. This is based mainly upon the language of sub-section (2) of S.4 of the Bombay Act which it was observed, has no reference to the appointed day and does not provide that in spite of the death of the holder the determination of the surplus land will have reference to the appointed day. S.85(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act specially refers to the excess land as on the appointed day which is 11-1970. In the case before me there is no question of any change in legal consequences by reason of the death of the declarant and the obligation to surrender continues to be that of the family of which the declarant was a member. In the circumstances, the Taluk Land Board was right in its decision that it is not S.87 of the Act which should apply. 5. As to the gift executed subsequent to 111970 the Taluk Land Board was right in holding that lands covered by such gift ought not to be excluded from computation in determining the extent held. This has been so held Dy this Court. 6. Therefore on the matters decided by the Taluk Land Board I see no reason to interfere. I think the order of the Land Board calls for interfering for another reason. interference 7. It is seen from the objection filed by the parties to the draft publication that certain contentions were raised as to the availability of certain items of properties with the declarant. Particular reference may be made to paras 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the objection dated 26-12-1974 In Para.3 mention is made of the non-availability of 47 cents in R.S. No. 97 as it is in the hands of kandamdars. In para 5 mention is made of non-availability of 20 cents in Sy. No. 121/16. In para 5 mention is made of a lease of 95 cents of land in R. S.93/6 and in para 6 mention is made of a lease of 1096 in regard to 97 cents in R.S. 90/4. If the Land Board had discussed the availability of these lands and come to a decision one way or the other this court might not have interfered with the decision. But from the order it is seen that there is no reference at all to these contentions. If the Land Board had discussed the availability of these lands and come to a decision one way or the other this court might not have interfered with the decision. But from the order it is seen that there is no reference at all to these contentions. So is the case with the contention raised in para 8 of the objection that for the beneficial enjoyment of the dwelling house 2 acres of land was necessary. Since these questions are not considered interference with the order is called for to that extent. The Taluk Land Board is directed to go into these questions afresh and decide the question of surrender in the light of the decision on these questions also. Allowed as above. No costs.