Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the quashing of Ext. P-4 order of the 2nd respondent, the Taluk Land Board, South Wynad, dated 28-2-1980, setting aside Ext. P-1 order passed under S.85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (the Act) on 15-3-1977 and ordering the reopening of the ceiling proceedings in respect of the petitioner. The submission made by Sri. Mohankumar, the counsel tor the petitioner, is that the Taluk Land Board not having initiated the proceedings for the reopening within one year from the date of the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 13 of 1978 (the Amendment Act) which came into force on 1-10-1977, Ext. P4 order was without jurisdiction, and was liable to be quashed. In support of this contention he relied on the transitory provisions contained in S.4 of the Amendment Act which provides: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board, as the case may be, may set aside any order passed by it under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7), as the case may be, of S.85 of the principal Act and proceed afresh under that sub-section if it is satisfied that any person who, according to such order, was not liable to surrender any land, had owned or held, on the date of such order, land in excess of the ceiling area: Provided that the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board shall not (a) ... (b) initiate any proceedings under this sub-section after the expiry of one year from the commencement of this Act." (emphasis supplied) The submission made by Sri Mohankumar is that the Amendment Act having come into force on 1-10-1977 the Taluk Land Board was not competent to initiate proceedings under S.85(9) of the Act after 30-9-1978 by which date the period of one year from the commencement of the Amendment Act expired. 2. 2. In this connection we have also to notice the provisions contained in sub-section (9) of S.85 of the Act (as amended by the Amendment Act) which provides: "(9) The Taluk Land Board may, at any time, set aside its order under subsection (5) or sub-section (7), as the case may be, and proceed afresh under that subsection 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: Provided that the Taluk Land Board shall not set aside any order under this subsection without giving the persons affected thereby an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that the Taluk Land Board shall not initiate any proceedings under this sub-section after the expiry of three years from the date on which the order sought to be set aside has become final. (emphasis supplied) 3. It would appear that Sri. Mohankumar's contention is that to deal exclusively with clause (c) of sub-section (9) of S.85, a special provision has been made in the proviso (b) to S.4 of the Amendment Act, and, therefore, the 2nd proviso to sub-section (9) of S.85 of the Act, enabling the Taluk Land Board to initiate proceedings within three years from the date of the order sought to be set aside, shall not be applicable to cases covered by clause (c) of sub-section (9) of S.85 of the Act. 4. There could be little doubt that the transitory provisions contained in S.4 of the Amendment Act is intended to overcome the difficulty which confronted the Taluk Land Board and the Land Board in reopening matters under S.85(9) of the Act as it stood before being amended by the Amendment Act in view of the decision reported in Francis v. Taluk Land Board (1977 KLT. 187). This is clear from the statement of objects and reasons annexed to the Bill. 187). This is clear from the statement of objects and reasons annexed to the Bill. The period of three years for the reopening was fixed under sub-s. (9) of S.85 of the Act even before its amendment by the Amendment Act. The provisions, as then stood, however, were found to be ineffective to deal with cases where the Taluk Land Board or the Land Board, as the case may be, earlier decided that the landholder concerned was not liable to surrender any land. The result, therefore, was that in very many cases the Taluk Land Board and the Land Board could not set aside their earlier orders, or to reopen the matters, even where they were satisfied that actually the landholders concerned were holding land in excess of the ceiling area. This was in centra¬distinction with the position relating to orders in which the Taluk Land Board or the Land Board had directed certain extent of land to be surrendered by the landholder and which could be reopened within three years from the date of the order by virtue of the provisions in S.85(9) of the Act. The transitory provisions in S.4 of the Amendment Act do not in any way restrict the powers available to the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board under sub-section (9) of S.85 of the Act; on the other hand, they confer an additional power in the Board to reopen a particular type of order with no inhibition of time limit prescribed in sub-section (9) of S.85 of the Act provided the proceedings in that behalf are initiated within one year from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. The wording in the second proviso to S.4 of the Amendment Act itself indicates that the time limit of one year from the date of the commencement of that Act is prescribed only for the purpose of action under that section which fact also indicates that the power of the Taluk Land Board and the Land Board under sub-section (9) of S 85 remains unaffected or uncontrolled by the said proviso to the transitory provisions. 5. 5. Any order passed by the Taluk Land Board or the Land Board is liable to be set aside and the liability of the landholder fixed afresh on the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board being satisfied that any of the conditions stated in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (9) of S.85 existed, provided proceedings are initiated within three years from the date of the order sought to be set aside. This would clearly be applicable to all cases whether by the order any extent of land had been ordered to be surrendered or not, inasmuch as clause (c) of sub-section (9) takes in within its ambit the type of orders for which additional provisions have been made in S.4 of the Amendment Act. 6. The legal position being as stated above, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that Ext. P4 order for the reopening of the ceiling proceedings was passed by the 2nd respondent Taluk Land Board without jurisdiction for the sole reason that steps in that direction were not initiated within one year from the date of the commencement of the Amendment Act could not be accepted. The petitioner has no case that the proceedings were not irritated within three years from the date of the order sought to be set aside. If there are no grounds for reopening the matter on merits on the plea that none of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (9) of S.85 of the Act existed in the present case, it would have been a different case altogether. No such contention has been put forward. Moreover, the petitioner had the opportunity to file objections to the revised draft statement issued in pursuance of Ext. P-4 order. For the foregoing reasons the writ petition fails and is dismissed, however, in the circumstances of the case, without any order as to costs.