Judgment :- 1. These revision petitions are filed against the dismissal by the Land Board of two separate applications filed under S.85(8) of Kerala Act 1 of 1964 (for short the 'Act'). These applications were presented within two months of the revised final order passed against the declarant who is the fourth respondent in CRP. 2193 of 1979. In the two applications, the applicants set up tenancy rights over two different items of properties. The revision petitioners in CRP. No. 2193 of 1979 who are brother and sister, claimed to be in possession of 28.06 acres as heirs of the lessee under a lease granted by the fourth respondent. They claimed to have orally divided the property in 1969 and entered into a registered partition deed in 1971. The Land Board dismissed the application on rejecting their claim of tenancy. Revision petitioner in CRP. 2105 of 1979 claimed tenancy in regard to various items including 75 cents in Sy. No. 1699, under a pattachit of 1116; for all these items he obtained a purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal in July 1976. His application under S.85(8) of the Act was also dismissed by the Land Board on rejecting his claim. The two applications under S.85(8) were dismissed after recording definite findings against the tenancy and right set up. 2. S.85(8) of the Act states that where the extent of land to be surrendered is determined without hearing any person interested, such a person may within 60 days from the date of such determination apply to the Taluk Land Board to set aside the order and on being satisfied that he was so prevented by sufficient cause from appearing, the Taluk Land Board shall set aside the order and proceed under sub-s. (5) or sub-s. (7) as the case may be. In order that the Taluk Land Board should set aside the final order passed under clause (5) or clause (7) of S.85 of the Act, it must be satisfied regarding three conditions, namely, that the applicant is a person interested, that he has filed the application within 60 days from the date of the final order and that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the Taluk Land Board prior to the final order. If these three conditions are satisfied the Taluk Land Board has to set aside its earlier final order and proceed in accordance with sub-s. (5) or sub-s. (7) of S.85. 3. The right to move the Land Board under S.85(8) is conferred on a person interested. It is contended by learned Government Pleader that "person interested" means a person who is able to establish a right in the property involved in the case and if that be so, before allowing the application under S.85(8), Land Board has to record a definite finding whether the applicant has established or failed to establish the right claimed. Learned counsel for revision petitioners on the other hand contended that if a claimant establishes a prima facie case he has to be treated as a "person interested" and therefore a conclusive or definite finding regarding existence or otherwise of the right claimed is not called for at that stage. If the legislative intent was as expressed by learned Govt. Pleader, the Legislature could have used other expressions such as "person having right" or "person having title" or "person holding property" etc; the legislature did not use those expressions but preferred to use the expression person interested. The deliberate use of such an expression cannot be said to be without any significance. A person interested is a person having some interest in the proceedings. A person could have interest in the proceedings only if he has interest in the land involved in the proceedings. According to Oxford English Dictionary, "interest" means relationship of being objectively concerned in something, by having a right or title or a claim upon or share or legal concern in something. "Interested" means having such a relationship or concern. For the purpose of S.85(8) it is sufficient if the applicant satisfies the Board that he is a person interested in the land. He may have lawful title or right in the land; but that need not be established at that stage. It is sufficient if be shows that he has a claim upon or legal concern in the land. 4. If a definite finding regarding existence or otherwise of the right claimed is recorded, nothing much remains to be decided in the reopened proceedings under sub-s. (5) or sub-s. (7). It is sufficient if be shows that he has a claim upon or legal concern in the land. 4. If a definite finding regarding existence or otherwise of the right claimed is recorded, nothing much remains to be decided in the reopened proceedings under sub-s. (5) or sub-s. (7). At the same time, sub-s (8) insists that on setting aside the order, the Board has to proceed under sub-s. (5) or sub-s. (7). Proceeding under sub-s. (5) or sub-s. (7) involves a verification, enquiry etc. If a person filing an application under S.85 (8) of the 'Act sets up a claim of tenancy and if the application could be allowed only after recording a definite finding in favour of the tenancy, it follows that whatever right the declarant or the owner had in the property has already vested in the Government on 1-1-1970. If that be so, all that would remain to be done under sub-s. (5) or (7) of S.85 is to delete that item from the account of the declarant or the person , against whom suo motu proceedings were taken. However sub-s. (8) clearly indicates further proceedings being taken under sub-s. (5) or sub-s. (7). which in turn involves verification, enquiry etc. Such verification and enquiry must relate to the right set up by the interested person. When this provision is given due weight, it can only lead to the conclusion that in an application under sub-s. (8), a definite or conclusive finding regarding the right set up by the applicant is not called for. That is why the expression person interested has been deliberately used. This expression has been used only to indicate a person who is in a position to establish a prima facie case. If he establishes a prima facie case, the Board has to set aside the final order and proceed under clause (5) or (7) of S.85. Board has to call for a verification report regarding the right put forward by the claimant and after hearing the claimant and the declarant or the person concerned in the ceiling case, adjudicate on the claim and on the basis of such adjudication pass final orders. 5. The above conclusion is supported by the following observations of M P. Menon J. in C. R. P. No. 1488 of 1977. 5. The above conclusion is supported by the following observations of M P. Menon J. in C. R. P. No. 1488 of 1977. I quote: "The Taluk Land Board has proceeded on the basis that the applicants have not established their tenancies. Under S.85 (8), all that they need show is that they are persons interested in the land to be surrendered, and had sufficient cause for non-appearance before the Taluk Land Board earlier. The approach of the Taluk Land Board is therefore erroneous and the order has to be set aside. I do so." The following observations in C. R. P. 1206 of 1979 and 1965 of 1979 are also relevant: "When a claimant sets up a tenancy, the Board initially is not called upon to decide on the question whether the tenancy set up is true or not. What it is called upon to decide is the limited question whether on the basis of the materials placed before it, it can be held that the claimant is a person interested in the property." 6. In adjudicating on the claims put forward by the applicants, the Land Board did not limit itself to a consideration of the short question involved therein but proceeded to adjudicate the larger question of validity or acceptability of the claims set up The Land Board was not justified in doing so In the normal course, this conclusion would have justified a remand for a fresh decision under S.85 (8) of the Act However, in view of the fact the ceiling case itself is an old one and the applications under S.85 (8) are also quite old, I do not think I will be justified in remanding the case for fresh disposal under S.85 (8) of the Act. The revision petitioners in C. R. P. 2193 of 1979 have produced a registered partition deed which refers to the tenancy right set up by them; the document prima facie supports their claim The Revision petitioner in C. R. P. 2105 of 1979 has produced a certificate issued by competent Land Tribunal. It is quite possible that ultimately the Land Board may be in a position to reject the conclusiveness attached to this certificate as contemplated in the decision reported in Mathew and Others v. Taluk Land Board (1979 KLT. 601). It is quite possible that ultimately the Land Board may be in a position to reject the conclusiveness attached to this certificate as contemplated in the decision reported in Mathew and Others v. Taluk Land Board (1979 KLT. 601). But for the limited purpose of S.85(8) of the Act, the certificate issued by the Tribunal would be acceptable as primafacie proof of the claim put forward. Since prima facie proof of the claims put forwarded in the two cases is available and since there is no contention that the other conditions contemplated under S.85 (8) of the Act are not satisfied, I allow the application under S.85 (8) of the Act and set aside the final order passed in the ceiling case to the extent of the claims put forward by claimants in these two revision petitions. The matter stands reopened to that extent and the Land Board will hold further proceedings under S.85 (5) of the Act after giving notice to the persons concerned and after securing a verification report from the Authorised Officer in regard to the claims and giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce such evidence as they may desire. It is made clear that further proceedings may be based on the draft statement already issued, and will be limited to the claims which the revision petitioners in these two cases have preferred. The revision petitions are accordingly allowed but without costs.