Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner, a private limited company, was directed by the Taluk Land Board, Kanjirappally, by its order dated 24 21976, made in Ceiling Case No. TLB. 649/75/KPY to surrender an extent of 115.17 acres of land, determined to be the extent of land held by it in excess of the ceiling area pacified under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 2. Sri C. K. Sivasankara Panicker, the counsel for the revision petitioner-company, contended that the land, as on 141964, was private forest, exempted under clause (d) of subjection (1) of S.81, and therefore, ought not to have been taken into account for the application of the ceiling provisions of the Act. He also contended that S.82(4) would not be a bar inasmuch as the conversion was not from a class of land specified in Schedule II to the Act, into another class of land specified in the same Schedule to the Act. 3. The finding of the Taluk Land Board, on a consideration of the authorised officer's report, and the recitals in the document under which the land was acquired by the revision petitioner-company, was that the land was not private forest as defined in S.2(47) of the Act. No material has been placed before me to warrant the conclusion that there was a failure on the part of the Taluk Land Board to apply the relevant provisions of the Act correctly to the facts of the case; moreover, whether or not the land in question was private forest on the date on which Act I of 164 came into force is purely a question of fact; I do not, therefore, propose to interfere with the conclusion reached by the Taluk Land Board that this land was not 'private forest' as on 14 1964. 4. Alternatively, the counsel contended that S.82, as it stood before Act I of 1964 was amended by Act 35 of 1969, was not made applicable to companies, the operation of the provisions of the section being then restricted to adult unmarried persons and families. It is by the incorporation of clause (d) into sub-section (1) of S.82, brought into force on 1-1-1970, by the Amending Act, (Act XXV of 1969) that the ceiling provisions were extended to the case of "any other person", which term, as defined in S.2(43) included companies also. 5. It is by the incorporation of clause (d) into sub-section (1) of S.82, brought into force on 1-1-1970, by the Amending Act, (Act XXV of 1969) that the ceiling provisions were extended to the case of "any other person", which term, as defined in S.2(43) included companies also. 5. By virtue of the notification under S.83, the ceiling provisions contained in S.82 of the Act came to be enforced with effect from 1-1-1970. There is nothing to indicate that the incorporation of clause (d) into sub-section (1) of S.82 of the Act was with retrospective effect. This would necessarily mean that the ceiling provision applicable to the petitioner-company would be as it stood on 111970. In other words, revision petitioner-company, strictly speaking, was not concerned with the state of affairs of the land prior to 111970 so far as it relates to ceiling provisions, and the question of conversion did not arise at all in this case. S.82 (4) of the Act will not be attracted to a case like this for the reason that the ceiling provisions were not made applicable to the company prior to 111970, and there had been no conversion after the ceiling provisions were made applicable to it The legislative intent does not appear to have been to take note of the changes that took place in respect of the land in the matter of classification during the time when the ceiling provisions were not made applicable to the person who owned or held it (the land). A probe into transformation, if any, that took place in the nature of the land prior to the date from which ceiling provisions were made applicable to the company, does not seem to be warranted, as it is clear that it would go beyond real purpose of the relevant provisions. I am also of the view that in accordance with the scheme of the Act, as it now stands, there is no need to take note of conversion of land from one class to another even after 111970 for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area, unless the Act is suitably amended in that behalf. 6. Counsel contended that only an extent of 30cents has been exempted as against the claim for a larger extent by way of house sites and sites of building. 6. Counsel contended that only an extent of 30cents has been exempted as against the claim for a larger extent by way of house sites and sites of building. What would constitute the house sites, and sites of building, being question of fact,1 do not propose to interfere with the decision of the Taluk Land Board on this point. The contention of the counsel with respect to this point, is, therefore, rejected. 7. For the foregoing reasons the revision is allowed in part; the impugned order is set aside; and the matter is remanded to the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal in the light of the observations contained in this order, and in accordance with law. The Taluk Land Board would ascertain as to what, if any, is the extent of land covered by rubber plantation as on 1-1-1970 out of the 130.47 acres held by the revision petitioner-company, and exempt such extent also, besides the extent of 30 cents already exempted, while reckoning the extent of land held by the revision petitioner for the purpose of ceiling area. There will be no order as to costs. 8. Carbon copy of this order would be granted to the Government Pleader free of charge and to the counsel for the revision petitioner on usual terms, if applied for in that behalf. Partly allowed.