Judgment :- 1. The common question that falls to be considered in these revisions is whether a person who files a ceiling statement and who is ordered under S.85(5) of the Land Reforms Act to surrender surplus land, as the petitioners were, is competent to seek to re-open the order under S.85(8) of the Act. The two petitioners made such unsuccessful applications, the petitioner in CRP. 4721 on the allegation that he did not receive notice of the proceedings and therefore could not put forward his defence and the petitioner in CRP. 5367 on the allegation that he could not produce all his evidence before the order for surrender was made. 2. S.85(1) lays down that a person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area, shall surrender such excess land and sub-section (2) requires him to file a statement before the Land Board of all his lands (including lands exempted under S.81) with the details prescribed and indicating the lands proposed to be surrendered. Sub S.2A sets out the persons who are to file the statements in the case of adult unmarried person, in the case of persons under disability, in the case of a family and in the case of any other person. Sub-s. (5) authorises the Land Board to transfer the statements to the Taluk Land Boards and it then proceeds to empower the latter (a) to cause the particulars in the statement to be verified, (b) to "ascertain whether the person to whom the statement relates owns or holds any other lands"; and (c) "by order,(to) determine the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered." Sub-section (6) deals with the determination of the identity of the land in terms of the choice indicated in the statement and with the grounds on which the Taluk Land Board could refuse to accept the choice. The proviso which follows lays down 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." Sub-section (7) empowers the Taluk Land Board, where default is made in the submission of statements, to make necessary enquiries and determine the extent and other particulars of the land, the ownership or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered. The proviso to the sub-section enacts that before such determination the Taluk Land Board shall give an opportunity to the persons interested in the land, to be heard. Sub-section (8) on which the question primarily turns runs as follows: "Where the Taluk Land Board determines the extent of the land to be surrendered by any person without hearing any person interested, such person may, within sixty days from the date of such determination, apply to the Taluk Land Board to set aside the order and, if he satisfies the Taluk Land Board that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing before the Taluk Land Board it shall set aside the order and shall proceed under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) as the case may be." 3. On the terms of the sub-section, it is obvious that it draws a distinction between the person who is to surrender excess land on the determination of the Taluk Land Board and the person interested who has not been heard by the Taluk Land Board. The expression "such person" connotes the latter person and the right of making the application is conferred upon him and not upon the person whose excess land has been determined. The person who has been ordered to surrender excess land can only mean the person who had submitted the return or on whose behalf it was submitted or to whom the statement related, as is obvious from sub-sections (2), (2A), (3), (3A), (5) and (6). The person who has been ordered to surrender excess land can only mean the person who had submitted the return or on whose behalf it was submitted or to whom the statement related, as is obvious from sub-sections (2), (2A), (3), (3A), (5) and (6). When the words "Where the Land Board determines the extent of the land to be surrendered by any person" in sub-section (8) are real in juxtaposition with the words "where a person owns or holds land in excess of the ceiling area on the date notified under S.83, such excess land shall be surrendered as hereinafter provided" in sub-section (1) it is obvious that the obligation to file statement is laid only on persons holding beyond the ceiling (or on others on his behalf as specified) and it is they who have to surrender excess land and that sub-section (8) draws a distinction between them and persons who are merely interested in the lands. It is also significant to note that the different provisions of S.85 make separate references to persons owning or holding excess land and to various other persons who would be merely affected by the proceedings vide proviso to sub-section (1), explanations I to IV to sub-section (2), proviso to clauses A to C in sub-section (6) and proviso to sub-section (7). The categories might not be exhaustive but persons tailing within these provisions would be those interested who could invoke the remedy under sub-section (8). 4. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the expression "any person interested" in sub-section (8) is wide enough to include "all persons interested" which would take in persons who have been ordered to surrender excess land as they are perhaps more interested than anyone else. In aid of this contention particular reliance was placed upon Chief Inspector of Mines v. Lala Karam Chand Thapar etc., AIR. 1961 SC. 838 (19612 SCA. 86), in which the Supreme Court held that the expression "any one of the directors" S.76 of the Mines Act, 1952 means "every one of the directors". In aid of this contention particular reliance was placed upon Chief Inspector of Mines v. Lala Karam Chand Thapar etc., AIR. 1961 SC. 838 (19612 SCA. 86), in which the Supreme Court held that the expression "any one of the directors" S.76 of the Mines Act, 1952 means "every one of the directors". The decision will scarcely help the petitioners For one thing this expression as their Lordships explained is ambiguous; in some contexts, it means "only one of the directors, does not matter which one" but in other contexts, it is capable of meaning "every one of the directors" and which meaning was intended by the legislature has to be decided on a consideration of the context in which the words appear and in particular, the scheme and object of the legislation. Assuming that the words "any person interested" in sub-section (8) can be construed as "every person interested", it does not follow, in the context that the words will take in the person who has been ordered to surrender excess land, for the dichotomy between the earlier expression "by any person" and the subsequent words "without hearing any person interested" is obvious. The reference to sub-sections (5) and (7) in subsection (8) provides no support to the petitioners, as it only means that if the application of the person interested is allowed, there would be a denovo proceeding to the extent required under these sub-sections. 5. Counsel for the petitioner in C. R. P. 4721 however referred to R.12 of the Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules which provides that the Taluk Land Board shall serve the draft statement which it has prepared along with a notice inviting objections to the draft statement, upon the persons (who may be generally described as persons) who have filed statements (Rule 12 (I) (i to iii)). Sub-rule (2) directs the service of draft statement and notice upon all other persons, so far as may be known, who have or are likely to have any claim or interest in the ownership or possession or both of the lands indicated in such draft statement as lands to be surrendered. Sub-rule (2) directs the service of draft statement and notice upon all other persons, so far as may be known, who have or are likely to have any claim or interest in the ownership or possession or both of the lands indicated in such draft statement as lands to be surrendered. Sub-rule (3) lays down that where the service of notice under sub-rule (2) is not sufficient or effective or practicable the Taluk Land Board may cause to be published a public notice in two daily newspapers having wide circulation in the area in which the lands covered by the draft statement are situated. R.12 carries the heading "Service of draft statement on persons interested" and from this circumstance and the further circumstance that the Rule provides for service of draft statement on persons filing ceiling statements (sub-clauses 1 to iii) and persons interested (sub-rule 2), counsel sought to argue that S.85 (8) should be construed as applying to both sets of persons It is impossible to accept the argument. Sub-section (8) ought to be construed on its terms and context and not under the influence of a statutory rule and that too a rule providing for a different purpose. Further the scope of the rule itself cannot be controlled by its heading; where the rule provides for service of draft statements on two categories of persons, it is impermissible to unite the categories into one merely from the generic nature of the heading. That the heading was not meant to represent the full content of the rule is also clear from sub-rule (3) which does not speak of service of draft statement at all. I reject this contention. Even so it is significant that despite the inaccurate heading, R.12 deals with the service of draft statements on the two categories of persons separately I might also refer to R.13 (2) which specifically provides for giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to persons who are interested in the land about which a question of exemption under S.81 arises. R.14 which deals with the Form and procedure of the application under S.85 (8( empowers the Taluk Land Board by sub-rule (2) to hold enquiries "in order to decide whether the applicant is interested in the land to be surrendered." thus maintaining the distinction between the two sets of persons. R.14 which deals with the Form and procedure of the application under S.85 (8( empowers the Taluk Land Board by sub-rule (2) to hold enquiries "in order to decide whether the applicant is interested in the land to be surrendered." thus maintaining the distinction between the two sets of persons. Passing to Form 6 which is the relevant Form spoken by R.14, it requires the applicant to specify the nature and extent of his interest and the land in which he is interested which has been directed to be surrendered. I referred to these statutory rules and form not because they could govern the construction of S 85 (8), but because they accord with the plain sense of the sub-section. 6. In my opinion sub-section (8) draws a distinction between the person the extent of the excess land to be surrendered by whom has been determined under sub-sections (5) and (7) and the person interested who has not been heard and it confers the right to apply under sub-section (8) only on the latter. The dismissal of the applications of the petitioners by the Taluk Land Board was therefore right and has to be upheld. I dismiss the revisions but without costs. Dismissed.