Judgment :- 1. The short point that arises for consideration in this case is whether S.85 (9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,1 of 1964, as amended by Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 13 of 1978, for short the Act, can be invoked against a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955 and run by a religious denomination known as 'Sisters of the Destitute' in view of S.98A of the Act. The petitioner is the superior in charge of the St. Thomas Poor Home, Malayattoor which is a branch of the Poor Home conducted at Chunanganvely by a society established and run by the 'Sisters of the Destitute' under the banner'House of the Aged and Infirm'. The above society is one which was registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. The society was registered by the religious denomination for the charitable purpose of looking after the aged and the destitute. 2. The petitioner filed a ceiling return on 15-2-1972 and the 2nd respondent-Taluk Land Board by Ext. P-1 order dated 30-12-1975 recorded the same holding that the declarant being the Head of a religious and charitable institution, the lands owned by the institution are exempted under S.81 (t) (ii) of the Act. But in December 1977, the petitioner was served with Ext. P-2 notice to show cause why Ext. P-1 order should not be set aside under S.85 (9) of the Act and the petitioner's case taken up for reconsideration. The petitioner filed Ext. P-3 objections before the 2nd respondent. But, according to the petitioner, without taking a decision (this has been controverted by the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent and Ext. R-1 produced along with the counter-affidavit is an order dated 21-1-1978 rejecting Ext. P-3 objections of the petitioner) the 2nd respondent issued Ext. P-5 notice forwarding Ext. P-4 draft statement calling upon the petitioner to file objections to the draft statement. It was thereupon that the petitioner approached this Court with this original petition for quashing Exts. P-2, P-4 and P-5 and for a writ of prohibition restraining the 2nd respondent from taking any further proceedings in the ceiling case pursuant to the notices Ext.s P-2 and P-5. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that Ext. P-2, P-4 and P-5 and for a writ of prohibition restraining the 2nd respondent from taking any further proceedings in the ceiling case pursuant to the notices Ext.s P-2 and P-5. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that Ext. P1 order happened to be passed by the Taluk Land Board under the impression that the petitioner's institution is a religious and charitable institution whose lands are entitled to be exempted under S.81 (t) (ii) of the Act. In Para.5 it is stated that on a further scrutiny consequent on Ordinance No. 17 of 1977, it was found that the petitioner's institution came under 'other person' mentioned in S.85 A of the Act and hence. Ext P2 notice was issued as the institution can retain only 10 standard acres and it is found liable to surrender an extent of 3.82 acres as excess lands. The earlier order Ext. PI was, as a matter of fact, set aside by Ext. RI order dated 21-1-1978. It is contended in Para.11 that the 2nd respondent is competent to pass Ext, R1. 4. S.85 (9) of the Act, as it stands after the amendment by Kerala Act 13 of 1978, reads: 'The Taluk Land Board may at any time, set aside its order under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7), as the case may be, and proceed afresh under that sub-section if it is satisfied that (a) the extent of lands surrendered by, or assumed from, a person under S.86 is less than the extent of lands which he was liable to surrender under the provisions of this Act; or (b) the lands surrendered by, or assumed from, a person are not lawfully owned or held by him; or (c) in a case where a person is, according to such order, not liable to surrender any land, such person owns or holds lands in excess of the ceiling area.' (The provisos and Explanations are omitted) S.98A of the Act reads: 'For the purposes of this Chapter, the term'person' shall not include a co-operative society or an institution of a public nature for religious and charitable purposes established and maintained by a religious denomination or any section thereof or the Board of Trustees for the improvement of the City of Trivandrum constituted under S.3 of the Trivandrum City Improvement Trust Act, 1960.' 5. In view of S.98A of the Act, the House of the Aged and Infirm, a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955 and run by the 'Sisters of the Destitute' a religious denomination, will not be 'a person' who is bound to file a ceiling return under S.85 A of the Act. Not only that, S.85 (9) of the Act which empowers the Taluk Land Board to set aside its order and proceed afresh can be invoked only where the order already passed by the Taluk Land Board is against a'person'. This is clear from clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (9) of S.85 of the Act So, even if an order is passed exonerating an institution from the liability to surrender any land, it can be set aside under S.85 (9) only if that institution is a 'person' for the purposes of Chapter III of the Act which contains the ceiling provisions. As the petitioner's institution has been excluded from the scope of the expression 'person' by S.98 A of the Act, the Taluk Land Board had no power to set aside the order already passed in the case of the petitioner's institution and to proceed afresh for fixing the ceiling and directing the surrender of excess land, if any. In the above view of the matter, Exts. P-2 and P-5 notices and Ext. P-4 draft statement are clearly without jurisdiction and hence they are set aside. It goes without saying that the 2nd respondent cannot take any further steps against the petitioner's institution under S.85 of the Act. 6. It is to be noted that the petitioner was also to some extent responsible for the confusion created. As long as S.98A is there, the petitioner is not bound to file a ceiling return. But, for reasons not known, the petitioner filed a return and obtained Ext. P-1 order. But by the mere fact that a declarant who cannot be a 'person' for the purposes of Chapter III of the Act comes forward and files a return, a 'Taluk Land Board will not get jurisdiction to fix his ceiling. Under S.85, the Taluk Land Board can take steps for fixing the ceiling limit only of a'person'. P-1 order. But by the mere fact that a declarant who cannot be a 'person' for the purposes of Chapter III of the Act comes forward and files a return, a 'Taluk Land Board will not get jurisdiction to fix his ceiling. Under S.85, the Taluk Land Board can take steps for fixing the ceiling limit only of a'person'. It is really unfortunate that the 2nd respondent-Taluk Land Board chose to invoke S.85 (9) of the Act against an institution which is doing yeoman service in the field of social work. The sweeping powers conferred upon the Taluk Land Boards by S.85 (9) of the Act should only be invoked very sparingly. Otherwise, harassment and hardship will be the result. 7. The original petition is 'allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.