Judgment :- 1. Two points arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition filed by the State of Kerala against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Kunnathur in suo mote case No. 17 of 1977 taken against the respondent under S.87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, I of 1964, for short the Act. The points are: 1. Whether a Taluk Land Board can take suo mote proceedings under S.87 of the Act without prior intimation from the Land Board, Trivandrum; and 2. Whether a Taluk Land Board has the power to fix the ceiling and direct surrender of excess land under S.87 of the Act if the land or lands acquired after 111970 was or were included in the draft statement issued to the person in determining his ceiling under S.85 of the Act. 2. In C. C. Nos. 178 of 1973 and 179 of 1973, the Taluk Land Board, Kunnathur fixed the ceiling of the respondent under S.85 of the Act and directed him to surrender 12.23 acres as excess lands. In the draft statement issued, the Taluk Land Board had also included in the total extent 5.50 acres purchased by the respondent after 141970. The final order of the Taluk Land Board was challenged by the respondent in CRP. No. 523 of 1975 before this Court and this Court held that 5 50 acres acquired by the respondent after 1-1-1970 cannot be included in the total extent of the lands of the respondent for the purposes of fixing his ceiling under S.85 of the Act. Accordingly, the Taluk Land Board was directed to exclude the above 5 50 acres from the extent of lands directed to be surrendered by the respondent. The Taluk Land Board modified its order as directed by this Court. Thereafter, it initiated suo mote proceedings under S.87 of the Act against the respondent as, according to it, the respondent has acquired 5.50 acres after 1-1-1970. A draft statement was issued. The power of attorney holder of the respondent objected to the proceedings. The main objection taken was that no fresh proceedings can be initiated against the respondent since the 5.50 acres in question was already included in an earlier ceiling case taken against the respondent and that was finally disposed of by this Court excluding this 5.50 acres from the ceiling area. The main objection taken was that no fresh proceedings can be initiated against the respondent since the 5.50 acres in question was already included in an earlier ceiling case taken against the respondent and that was finally disposed of by this Court excluding this 5.50 acres from the ceiling area. It was also contended that the decision in the earlier ceiling case will be res judicata in this case. The Taluk Land Board thereupon dropped the proceedings initiated under S.87 of the Act by the impugned order. The reason given in the order for dropping the proceedings is 'in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in CRP. No. 523 of 1975'. 3. The learned Government Pleader contended that the Taluk Land Board has the power to fix the ceiling of the respondent under S.87 of the Act even though it has already fixed his ceiling under S.85 of the Act in view of the fact that the respondent acquired lands after 1-1-1970. According to the learned Government Pleader, the mere fact that the Taluk Land Board wrongly included the extent acquired after 1-1-1970 in the draft statement issued under S.85 of the Act cannot bar fresh proceedings under S.87 of the Act. The learned Government Pleader further contended that there is no res judicata simply because the extent acquired was wrongly included in the draft statement under S.85. It was also pointed out that the extent acquired was ultimately excluded from the total extent of the respondent in the earlier case as that extent cannot be be included in the total extent in those proceedings. Shri K. S. Balakrishnan, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order of the Taluk Land Board dropping the proceedings on the ground that a Taluk Land Board has no power under S.87 of the Act to initiate suo mote proceedings without the prior intimation of the Land Board, Trivandrum. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of S.85(7) of the Act will be attracted to proceedings initiated under S.87 of the Act also. 4. S.87 of the Act reads: "87. Excess land obtained by gift, etc. to be surrendered. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of S.85(7) of the Act will be attracted to proceedings initiated under S.87 of the Act also. 4. S.87 of the Act reads: "87. Excess land obtained by gift, etc. to be surrendered. (1) Where any person acquires any land after the date notified under S.83 by gift, purchase, mortgage with possession, lease, surrender or any other kind of transfer inter vivos or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise and in consequence thereof, the total extent of land owned or held by such person exceeds the ceiling area, such excess shall be surrendered to such authority as may be prescribed. Explanation. Where any land is exempted, by or under S.81 and such exemption is in force on the date notified under S.83, such land shall, with effect from the date on which it ceases to be exempted, be deemed to be land acquired after the date notified under S.83. (1A) Any person referred to in sub-section (1) shall file a statement containing the particulars specified in sub-section (1) of S.85A within a period of three months of the date of the acquisition. (2) The provisions of S.85 and 86 shall, so far as may be, apply to the vesting in the Government of the ownership or possession or both of the lands required to be surrendered under sub-section (1)." S. 85 (2.) and (7) reads: "85 (2). Where a person owns or holds land in excess of the ceiling area, such person shall, within a period of three months from the date notified under S.83, file a statement before the Land Board intimating the location, extent and such other particulars as may be prescribed, of all the lands (including lands exempted under S.81) owned or held by such person and indicating the lands proposed to be surrendered. "85 (7). "85 (7). Where any person fails to file the statement specified under sub-section(2) or sub-section (3A), the Land Board shall, intimate that fact to the Taluk Land Board and thereupon the Taluk Land Board shall after necessary enquiries, by order, determine the extent and other particulars of the land, the ownership or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered: Provided that before such determination the Taluk Land Board shall give an opportunity to the persons interested in the land, to be heard." Rules 4 and 16 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 read: "4. Form of statement The statement under sub-section (2) of S.85 shall be in Form No. 1." "16. Form of statement. (1) Where any statement is filed after the final settlement of claims for resumption or purchase under sub-section (3A) of S.85 or after acquisition of land under sub-section (1A) of S.87, such statement shall be in Form No.1 with such adaptations, modifications or variations made therein as circumstances may require: Provided that the date "the 1st day of January, 1970" in the said Form wherever it occurs, shall be substituted by "the date immediately following the date of such final settlement of claims for resumption or purchase or acquisition, as the case may be". (2) -A person filing a statement under sub-rule (1) shall, along with such statement, file an additional statement in Form No. 8." 5. S.85 of the Act deals with the fixation of ceiling as on I-I-1970 and the determination of the extent and identity of the excess lands to be surrendered. S.87 is the corresponding provision for fixing ceiling and directing the surrender of excess lands where a person acquires lands after 1-1-1970 and thereby his total extent exceeds the ceiling limit. As a matter of fact, detailed provisions are contained in S.85. That may be the reason why S.87 (2) makes the provisions of S.85 also applicable in the matter of surrender of excess lands under S.87. Then the question is how far the provisions of S.85 can be invoked under S.87: According to S.87 (2) only the provisions of S.85 'so far as may be' apply. The words 'so far as may be' mean as far as possible or to the extent it is possible. Then the question is how far the provisions of S.85 can be invoked under S.87: According to S.87 (2) only the provisions of S.85 'so far as may be' apply. The words 'so far as may be' mean as far as possible or to the extent it is possible. So, all the provisions of S.85 which can be invoked under S.87 can be put into action to determine the ceiling limit and to get the surrender of the excess lands. S 85 (7) provides for the initiation of suo mote proceedings against persons who though bound to file ceiling returns do not file them. As far as suo mote proceedings are concerned, no distinction can be drawn between Ss.85 and 87. So, in view of S 87 (2), suo mote proceedings can be initiated under S.87 also. But the restriction in S.87 (2) will also be there. Then it goes without saying that a Taluk Land Board can initiate suo motu proceedings under S.87 only with prior intimation from the Land Board, Trivandrum. In this case, admittedly, no intimation from the Land Board was there for the Taluk Land Board to initiate suo mote proceedings. So, the proceedings initiated against the respondent has to go on that ground. In this connection,1 will also refer to some decisions cited at the bar. In Municipal Council, Ajmer v. Satya Narain (ILR. (1962) 12 Raj. 693) it is said: "The words 'so far as may be' mean to the extent it is possible." In Vidarbha Mills, Berar v. Ellichpur Municipality (AIR. 1943 Nag. 277) it is said: "'So far as may be, is equivalent to 'as far as possible' or, as the lower appellate court has interpreted, 'so far as it exists'." In Rani v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (AIR. 1959 All. 525) it is said: "The qualifying words 'as far as possible' really mean that the principles are to be observed unless it is not possible to follow them in the particular circumstances of a case." 6. Now I come to the second point. Lands acquired after 1-1-1970 can be taken into account only in proceedings under S.87 of the Act. Such lands have to be ignored in proceedings under S.85. Now I come to the second point. Lands acquired after 1-1-1970 can be taken into account only in proceedings under S.87 of the Act. Such lands have to be ignored in proceedings under S.85. In this case, though the Taluk Land Board included the lands acquired after 1-1-1970 also in fixing the respondent's ceiling under S.85 those lands were excluded from the total extent ultimately as directed by the High Court. So, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the mere inclusion of the lands acquired after 1-1-1970 in calculating the total extent under S.85 can debar the Taluk Land Board from taking proceedings for fixing the ceiling under S.87. There is no res judicata and the Taluk Land Board was in the wrong in dropping the proceedings on the ground or res judicata. But, as I have already held that the Taluk Land Board had no power to initiate suo motu proceedings without the prior intimation from the Land Board, Trivandrum, it goes without saying that the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board which resulted in the impugned order itself was without jurisdiction. In this view, the order of the Taluk Land Board dropping the proceedings need not be set aside. But it is made clear that the Taluk Land Board will be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the respondent under S.87 in accordance with law. 7. The Civil Revision is allowed as above. No costs. Allowed.