Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in CRP. No. 1495 of 1974 is the major son of the petitioner in CRP. No. 1257 of 1974. The latter is the manger of a joint Hindu family of himself, his wife two sons and a daughter. The children were minors on 111970, but one of the sons attained majority after that date. According to the petitioner in CRP. No. 1257 of 1974 that son demanded his share of the joint family properties after he attained majority and he filed a suit for partition of his share in the properties. Pending suit the father executed a gift in favour of the major son for 6 acres of land. Evidently the attempt is to claim that though the properties which are considered as that of the family of the petitioner in CRP. No. 1257 of 1974 belong to a family of five members on 111970 one of the sons having attained majority later and he having right by birth and therefore independent title to claim his share, besides the share due to the family the share due to an adult unmarried son must also be reckoned in determining the ceiling limit. It is further said that at any rate the gift in favour of the son for the share due to him must be upheld and the extent of the land covered by the gift should be excluded from the ceiling provisions. 2. The scheme of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 is to determine the ceiling limit of the family where there is a family. The family is defined as that consisting of the husband, wife and the minor children. S.82 (1) fixes the ceiling limit and S.82 (2) deems the lands owned or held by any member of a family as land of the family for the purpose of Chapter III. Therefore, irrespective of the question of the title of the members of the family to the lands, the total extent of lands owned or held by such members will be taken as lands of the family for the purpose of ceiling limit. Irrespective of any other question, if on 1-1-1970, the family consisted of husband, wife and three children, the extent that could be owned or held as ceiling limit will be that permissible for a family of not more than 5 members and that is how that has been reckoned. Irrespective of any other question, if on 1-1-1970, the family consisted of husband, wife and three children, the extent that could be owned or held as ceiling limit will be that permissible for a family of not more than 5 members and that is how that has been reckoned. Subsequent attainment of majority of one of the members is irrelevant for the purpose of ceiling. 3. The second contention, namely that the extent covered by gift should be excluded is also unsustainable as such gift is subsequent to 1-1-1970. 4. Lastly it is urged that the petitioner opted to surrender that extent of land which, according to him, was liable to be surrendered and if it was found that larger extent was to be surrendered a fresh opportunity must be given to him to indicate the additional land that he is bound to surrender. The land which is shown by him as that he was willing to surrender is 3 acres 83 cents comprised in Sy. No 3192/2, 3198/4 and 3200/2 in Aryanad B Village. That entire extent has been directed to be surrendered by the order of the Taluk Land Board. In addition 3 acres I cent has also to be surrendered by the petitioner and since he has not indicated the property which he was willing to surrender the Board has directed surrender of 3.01 acres from Sy. No. 3197. Part of that survey number measuring 4.5 acres is arecanut garden, part measuring about 1 acre is house and house site and a portion of 2 acres is coconut garden. According to the petitioner even if he is to surrender 3.01 acres out of the 4.05 acres he is entitled to choose which portion be should surrender for the reason that his convenience is of prime importance Of course, it goes without saying that in directing such surrender, as far as possible convenience of the petitioner should also be considered. But whether the petitioner should, for that reason, get an opportunity for a second option is the controversy arising from the contention of counsel. 5. S.85 (2) and (3-A) enables a person in possession of excess land to indicate the lands proposed to be surrendered. But whether the petitioner should, for that reason, get an opportunity for a second option is the controversy arising from the contention of counsel. 5. S.85 (2) and (3-A) enables a person in possession of excess land to indicate the lands proposed to be surrendered. S.85 (6) of the Act provides that in determining the identity of the land the Taluk Land Board shall accept the choice indicated under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3A) There is a proviso to sub-section (6 of S.85 which reads: "Provided that the Taluk Land Board shall not be bound to accept such choice if (A) it has reason to believe that the person whose land is indicated to be surrendered has no good title to that land; or (B) the land indicated to be surrendered is not accessible; or (C) it considers for any other reason to be recorded in writing that it is not practicable to accept the choice or to take possession of the land. Provided further that where in such determination the interests of other persons are also likely to be affected, the Taluk Land Board shall, except in cases where all the persons interested have agreed to the choice indicated, afford an opportunity to such other persons to be heard and pass suitable orders regarding the land to be surrendered." Of course, the proviso is intended to safeguard against accepting the surrender of lands the tile to which is not good or land which is not accessible or other land which, for appropriate reasons, is not found to be fit for such surrender. As the section stands, excepting cases contemplated by the proviso, the choice by the person liable to surrender is to be final. But there may be cases where persons have not exercised their option either by failing to file a return or by failing to indicate properties which they are willing to surrender in the statement filed. Where there has been failure to file such statement there is a provision for filing a statement at any time before the identity of the properties which are to be surrendered is finally determined. Where there has been failure to file such statement there is a provision for filing a statement at any time before the identity of the properties which are to be surrendered is finally determined. Reference may be made to Explanation to R.21 (1) of the Ceiling Rules That reads: "Explanation: Where the land proposed to be surrendered is not indicated in the statement under sub-section(2) of S.85, but the person who has filed the statement subsequently furnishes another statement in writing specifying the lands proposed to be surrendered, such latter statement shall be deemed to be part of the statement under sub-section (2) of Sec.85." Therefore at any time before the final order is passed determining the identity of the property to be surrendered it is open to a person bound to surrender to file a statement indicating the lands he is willing to surrender. Such statement has to be accepted as it is deemed to be a statement under S.85(2). But where a person does not file such statement there is no provision in the Act or in the Rules which enables him to contend that he should, nevertheless, have been given an opportunity. I do not think that such a contention should succeed in this revision petition, for, if that be the case, whenever matters are finally settled without the person liable to surrender having indicated his choice, it will have to be reopened by this court at the request of the declarant. Such a course is not called for in the light of the provisions in the Act and the Rules. 6. My attention has been drawn to the decision of the learned Chief Justice in 1975 K L. T. Short Notes 26. That is the judgment in C.R.P. No. 358 of 1974. I do not find any view expressed in that judgment which helps the petitioner here. The learned Chief Justice notices that it is not urged before him that if the statement did not indicate the lards to be surrendered, a further statement before the disposal of the matter by the land Board cannot be made by the land holder Of course, I have already referred to the provision in the Explanation to R.21 which enables this. But where the matter has been finally disposed there is no question of the order being vitiated for failure to give notice asking for a further option by thedeclarant. 7. I therefore find no reason to give any opportunity to the petitioner to opt in regard to 3.1 acres which he is liable to surrender. But I find force in the contention that when a portion of land out of a larger property is directed to be surrendered it is necessary to identify that portion. The order does not even indicate in which portion of the survey number the 3.01 acres is to be located. When the Taluk Land Board was directing surrender of the part of a larger property it was obligatory on the part of the Board to indicate the identity of the area to be surrendered. Therefore in regard to that item of property before surrender is demanded the identity of the property to be surrendered should be determined after notice to the petitioner. 8. C. R. P. No. 1495 of 1974 is by the son of the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1257 of 1974 and raises identical contentions. What has been said here applies to both the cases. The revision petitions are disposed of as above. No costs.