CELINE v. STATE OF KERALA — 1981 DIGILAW 185 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. This revision is against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Kothamangalam, dated 8-5-1979, directing the 1st petitioner to surrender 12.53.435 acres of land as excess land in the possession of her family. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Late Joseph, husband of the 1st petitioner submitted a ceiling return to the Land Board under S.85(2) of the Kerala Land, Reforms Act 1 of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Land Board transferred the ceiling return for enquiry by the Taluk Land Board, Kothamangalam as per the provisions of sub-section (5) of S.85 of the Act. The return submitted by Joseph, (hereinafter referred to as the declarant), related to his family which on the date notified under S.83 of the Act, consisted of himself, his wife and six minor children. The declarant died on 30-6-1974 leaving behind his widow and ten children. Two of his children were majors on 1-1-1970 on the date notified under S.83 of the Act. He had eight children on the said date of whom two were majors. Two other children were born subsequent to 1-1-1970 The revision-petitioners are the widow and major children of the declarant. Petitioners 2 and 3 had attained majority before 1-1-1970 and the 4th petitioner attained majority after 1-1-1970. 3. The return submitted by the declarant relates to property owned and held by him and the ceiling area was to be fixed under S 82 of the Act with reference to the family consisting of the declarant, his wife and six minor children existing on 1-1-1970. On the death of the declarant on 30-6-1974, proceedings were continued against his widow, representing his family, and an order was passed by the Taluk Land Board on 26-10-1976 for surrender of 29.24.101 acres as excess land in the possession of the family. Against this, the petitioners 1 and 2 in this C.R.P. filed C.R.P 5444 of 1976 before this Court and this Court by order dated 10-1-1978 set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board and remanded the case for fresh disposal after affording the petitioners a fair and reasonable opportunity to substantiate their case. A revised order was passed by the Taluk Land Board on 8-5-79, for surrender of 12.53.435 acres as excess land in the possession of the family of the deceased declarant. A revised order was passed by the Taluk Land Board on 8-5-79, for surrender of 12.53.435 acres as excess land in the possession of the family of the deceased declarant. It is against this that the widow and three major sons of the declarant have come up in revision. 4. Apart from the challenge on the correctness of the decision of the Taluk Land Board on the merits, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has raised two other points in this revision viz. that on the death of the declarant, the entire proceedings before the Taluk Land Board abate and that in any event, notices should have been given by the Taluk Land Board to all the legal representatives of the deceased declarant and that they should also have been heard before final orders are passed for surrender of excess land. 5. In support of the first point, the learned Counsel for the petitioners refers to the provisions of the Act which would show that the excess land in the possession of a person vests in the Government, under S.86 of the Act only on the determination of the extent and other particulars of the lands, the ownership or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered under S.85 of the Act. According to the learned Counsel, since the declarant died before such determination, the estate of the deceased devolved by inheritance on his legal heirs who include also persons who are not members of the family as defined under the Act, the legal representatives have no obligation to surrender excess land unless they hold land in excess of the ceiling area fixed under the Act, and such a question can be determined only under S.87 of the Act Learned Counsel submits that the estate of the deceased declarant vests in his legal representatives on his death and there is no postponement of such vesting until after determination of the excess land for surrender held by the deceased declarant by the Taluk Land Board The concept of excess land is co-related to the person who owns or holds it, and it is such a person who is liable to surrender the same on determination of the extent and identity of such excess land for surrender, the liability is personal and on the death of the declarant the proceedings abate and his legal representatives need surrender excess land only in cases where they themselves hold land in excess of the ceiling area. S.82 of the Act fixes the ceiling area of land with respect to the various categories of persons mentioned in sub-section (1) S.83 enacts that no person shall be entitled to own or hold or to possess under a mortgage lands in the aggregate in excess of the ceiling area. Sub-section (1) of S.85 enacts that a person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area, on the date notified under S 83 shall surrender the excess land as provided for in the Section Sub section (2) of S.85 requires a person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area to file a statement before the Land Board intimating the location, extent and such other particulars prescribed by the Rules of all the lands held by him. Sub-section (5) provides for transfer or the statement by the Land Board to the Taluk Land Board concerned and the Taluk Land Board after enquiry is to determine the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered by the declarant. Sub-section (5) provides for transfer or the statement by the Land Board to the Taluk Land Board concerned and the Taluk Land Board after enquiry is to determine the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered by the declarant. In cases where no such statement is filed, the Taluk Land Board is authorised to take suo motu proceedings for determination of the extent and other particulars of land to be surrendered by a person holding land in excess of the ceiling area on receipt of intimation from the Land Board that he has failed to file a statement under S 85 (2). S.85A also provides for the filing of a statement of the nature mentioned in sub-section (2; of S.85 by the classes of persons mentioned in the Section to the Land Board within the time specified therein relating to the extent and other particulars of all the lands held by the persons submitting the statement, and the matter is to be enquired into by the Taluk Land Board on transfer of the statement by the Land Board for enquiry and determination of the extent of land to be surrendered by the declarant Sub-section (1) of S.86 reads as follows: "86(1). On the determination of the extent and other particulars of the lands, the ownership or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered under S.85. the ownership or possession or both, as the case may be of the land shall subject to the provisions of this Act, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances and the Taluk Land Board shall issue an order accordingly." According to this sub-section, the vesting of excess land in the Government is only on the determination of the extent and other particulars of the excess land for surrender by the Taluk Land Board under S.85 of the Act. Subsection (2) of S.86 requires the declarant to surrender the excess land on receipt of the order of the Taluk Land Board under sub-section (I) and subsection (3) provides that if any person fails to surrender the excess land, it is open to the Taluk Land Board to authorise any Officer to take possession or assume ownership of the land in such manner as may be prescribed. 6. 6. From these various provisions of the Act, it is submitted that the determination of excess land is with reference to a person holding the same on the date notified under S.83, that such excess land will vest in Government, only on determination of the extent and identity of the excess land for surrender after enquiry by the Taluk Land Board as provided for in the Act and until such determination and vesting the declarant continues to be the owner of the excess land On his death, his rights in the excess land also vest in his legal representatives under the personal law applicable to him The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in Janaki Amma v. State of Kerala (1979 KLT. 271) in support of his proposition that the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board abate on the death of the declarant and it makes no difference that the decision relates to an adult unmarried person holding land in excess of the ceiling area on the date notified under S.83 of the Act. Para.11 of the judgment reads as follows: "11. What happens to the excess land held by an adult unmarried person who dies before he did, or was required to, file a statement under S.85 (2) of the Act and what happens to the proceedings initiated against an adult unmarried person by the Taluk Land Board in pursuance of the statement filed by him under S.85(2) on his death? These are pertinent questions which we have to tackle. As far as the first question is concerned the legal liability to file statement under S.85 (2) arises only in the case of a person who held land in excess of the ceiling area on 1-1-70, the date notified under S.83 and that person having died, there is no liability on the person on whom the land devolves on his death, as the person who inherits the land was not holding that land on 1-1-1970 which means he could not be called upon to file a statement under S 85 (2). S.87 of the Act is intended to meet the situation arising out of acquisition of land by any person after the date notified under S.83 of the Act. S.87 of the Act is intended to meet the situation arising out of acquisition of land by any person after the date notified under S.83 of the Act. Under that section any person acquiring land by inheritance after the date of notification under S.83 shall be liable to surrender the excess land held by him. The liability of the person who acquires the land by devaluation may not always be the same as that of the person who died. For instance, take an adult unmarried person having seven standard acres equivalent to 7 ordinary acres. He was bound to surrender had he lived, an exent oil standard acre, as the ceiling limit with respect to him would be five standard acres, so however that it cannot be less than six ordinary acres, which in that case would be six standard acres. If it devolves entirely on another adult unmarried person who was himself holding 4 standard acres equal to four ordinary acres the person who inherited the property having an aggregate extent of eleven standard acres, out of which he would be entitled to retain within his ceiling area six standard acres (to make it the minimum of six ordinary acres, though, otherwise, it would have been five standard acres), will be liable to surrender five standard acres. As Narayana Pillai J., has pointed out in Idicula v. Taluk Land Board (1976 KLT. 550), what is not surplus land in the hands of one, may become surplus in the hands of another. In other words, excess land is a concept corelated to the person who owns or holds it." This was a case relating to an adult unmarried person. Under S.83 of the Act, the inhibition against owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area on the date notified under S 83 of the Act is on the person as defined in the Act The expression person is defined in S.2(43) "to include a company.family, joint-family, association or other body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. Under S.83 of the Act, the inhibition against owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area on the date notified under S 83 of the Act is on the person as defined in the Act The expression person is defined in S.2(43) "to include a company.family, joint-family, association or other body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. and any institution capable of holding property" The ceiling area applicable to an adult unmarried person is fixed under S.82(1) of the Act, and such person is liable to surrender excess land as determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act The concept of excess land is co-related to the person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area on the date notified under S.83 and on his death this Court has held that the proceedings against him abate and cannot be continued against his legal representatives. This decision can have no application in the case of a family, which does not extinguish on the death of the individual who submitted the ceiling return. S 2(14) of the Act defines a "family" to mean "husband, wife and their unmarried minor children or such of them as exist" A family is also a person within the meaning of the Act, and unless the family is extinct on the death of the declarant, the proceedings will not abate and will continue against the family 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in Dadarao son of Kashiram and Another v. State of Maharashtra (AIR. 1970 Bom 144) Therein it is held at Para.14 as follows: "14. It will thus be seen that the holder of the land is not divested of the surplus land on 26-1-1962 but continues to be the owner of land till the final declaration is made by the Collector, or by the Revenue Tribunal, or the State Government, as the case may be and continues to be the owner and in possession and enjoyment of all his land till the date of vesting of the surplus land in the State Government. The said declaration has to be made on the basis of the return filed by "a person" which includes a family and that return has to be filed with respect to the land which he held on and after 4-8-1959 and continues to hold till 26-1-1962. The said declaration has to be made on the basis of the return filed by "a person" which includes a family and that return has to be filed with respect to the land which he held on and after 4-8-1959 and continues to hold till 26-1-1962. With respect to such a return of "a person" the land to De retained by him and the land to be declared as surplus land is determined. If that person dies or ceases to be in existence after the return is filed, then the determination of the ceiling area to be retained by the holder cannot be with respect to that 'person' because a dead person cannot hold or retain any property There is no provision in the Ceiling Act for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased holder who files a return or dies after 26-1-1962 so that the legal representatives would step into the shoes of the deceased holder. The vesting of the property cannot remain in abeyance and as such, as the bolder dies before the vesting in the State Government takes place, the property which be held must pass to his heirs or if there is a "will" to his legatees and after such passing of the property the heirs or the legatees take the property in their own rights either as heirs or legatees and do not simply step into the shoes of the deceased holder. The Ceiling Act nowhere makes a provision that the ceiling is to be determined as on the state of affairs existing on 26-1-1962 even if the holder who was alive on 26-1-1962 dies after that date. In the absence of any such provision, it must be taken that the Ceiling Act contemplates "a person" who is alive not only on the date 26-1-1962, the appointed day, but at the time of the filing of the return and till the date of the declaration made by the Collector under S.21 of the Ceiling Act". This relates to the interpretation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act (27 of 1961). The relevant provisions of the Act are discussed in Para.8 of the judgment. These provisions are different from the provisions of the Kerala Act. This relates to the interpretation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act (27 of 1961). The relevant provisions of the Act are discussed in Para.8 of the judgment. These provisions are different from the provisions of the Kerala Act. S.4(1) of the Maharashtra Act prohibits a person from holding land in excess of the ceiling area as determined in the manner provided by the Act, and sub-section (2) of S.4 provides that subject to the provisions of the Act all lands held by a person in excess of the ceiling area shall be deemed to be surplus land and shall be dealt with in the manner provided for in the Act S.8 of the Act enacts that no person holding land in excess of the ceiling area on or after the appointed day, shall transfer or partition any land until the land in excess of the ceiling area is determined under the Act. Chapter IV of the Act requires a person holding surplus land to submit a return in the prescribed form. An enquiry is to be held by the Collector in accordance with the provisions contained in S.14 to 20 and thereafter the Collector has to make a declaration regarding the surplus land and take steps to take over possession of the surplus land. The land shall be deemed to have been acquired by the Government only on such taking possession of the surplus land. These provisions of the Maharashtra Act are not in para materia with the provisions of the Kerala Act. There is no inhibition in the Maharashtra Act against a person holding. land in excess of the ceiling area as is provided for in S 83 of the Kerala Act. The only inhibition in the Maharashtra Act is against transfer or partition of excess land after the notified date by a person holding the same. S.83 of the Kerala Act enacts that with effect from such date as may be notified by the Government in the Gazette, no person shall be entitled to own or hold or to possess under a mortgage lands in the aggregate in excess of the ceiling area. S.83 of the Kerala Act enacts that with effect from such date as may be notified by the Government in the Gazette, no person shall be entitled to own or hold or to possess under a mortgage lands in the aggregate in excess of the ceiling area. Sub-section (2) of S.82 enacts a legal fiction that all lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family for the purpose of Chapter III of the Act. Family as defined under the Act is also a person against whom S.83 applies and the proceedings under the Act for determination of excess land and for surrender of the same can be taken against a family which continues even after the death of the person who submitted the ceiling return. The prohibition in S.4 (1) of the Maharashtra Act is only against holding land in excess of the ceiling area as determined in the manner provided for under the Act. This would indicate that until such determination a person is entitled to hold land even in excess of the ceiling area. The Supreme Court in Raghunath Laxman Wani & Others v. The State of Maharastra & Others (AIR. 1971 SC. 2137), relating to a case arising under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act 27 of 1961) held in Para.17 as follows: '17. The scheme of the Act seems to be to determine the ceiling area of each person (including a family) with reference to the appointed day. The policy of the Act appears to be that on and after the appointed day no person in the State should be permitted to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area as determined under the Act and that ceiling area would be that which is determined as on the appointed day. Therefore, if there is a family consisting of persons exceeding five in number on January, 26, 1962, the ceiling area for that family would be the basic ceiling area plus 1/6th thereof per member in excess of the number five. The ceiling area so fixed would not be liable to fluctuations with the subsequent increase or decrease in the number of its members, for there is. The ceiling area so fixed would not be liable to fluctuations with the subsequent increase or decrease in the number of its members, for there is. apart from the explicit language of S.3 and 4 no provision in the Act providing for the redetermination of the ceiling area of a family on variations in the number of its members. The argument that every addition or reduction in the number of the members of a family requires redetermination of the ceiling area of such a family would mean and almost perpetual fixation and re-fixation in the ceiling area by the Revenue Authorities, a state of affairs hardly to have been contemplated by the legislature. The argument would also mean that where a surplus area is already determined and allotted to the landless persons such area would have to be taken back and given to a family, the number of whose members subsequently has augmented by fresh births." This decision clearly lays down that ceiling area is to be determined with reference to the notified date and subsequent fluctuations in the family are not to be taken note of in determining the excess land to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. 8. The question as to whether the proceedings will abate on the death of the declarant who submitted a ceiling return relating to his family came up for consideration before Poti J. (as he then was) in Arya Antharjanam v. State of Kerala (1976 KLT. 446). Para.2 and 3 of the judgment read thus: "2. The land is held by the family as defined in S.2 (14) of the Act. Such family in the case here consists of the husband and wife only and on the death of the husband the wife continues to represent the family as the sole surviving member thereof. Therefore the ultimate decision must relate to the extent of land to be held by that family and not by any legal representatives. 3. It may also be seen from S.83 as well as S.85 (1) of the Act that the obligation to surrender excess land is with regard to excess owned or held by a person as on the notified date referred to in S.83. 3. It may also be seen from S.83 as well as S.85 (1) of the Act that the obligation to surrender excess land is with regard to excess owned or held by a person as on the notified date referred to in S.83. Therefore if on 1-1-1970 any person holds land in excess of the ceiling area the obligation to surrender is incurred and that is what is to be determined The determination under S.86 (1) of the extent and other particulars of the lands to be surrendered under S.85 is the excess as on 1-1-1970. Therefore, the death of the declarant makes no difference in the obligation to surrender excess land." Alter referring to the decision in Dadarao v. State (AIR. 1970 Bom 144), the learned judge in Para.4 held as follows: 4In the case before me there is no question of any change in legal consequences by reason of the death of the declarant and the obligation to surrender continues to be that of the family of which the declarant was a member. In the circumstances, the Taluk Land Board was right in its decision that it is not S.87 of the Act which should apply." 9. Bhaskaran J. had in C.R P. No.1077 of 1977 considered the question whether on the death of the declarant who submitted a ceiling return with respect to his family, the proceedings shall be continued against the surviving member or members of the family. The learned judge in Para.4 of the judgment observed thus: 4. In fact, being the husband, it is in his capacity as the head of the family consisting of himself and the first revision petitioner that the declarant filed the statement under S.85-A of the Act. Even after his death one of the members of the statutory family, namely, the first revision petitioner his widow, survived him. So, death in, or addition to. the family would not cause any fluctuation in the obligation to surrender excess land held by the (statutory) family as on 1-1-1970. already incurred by it. The decision of the Supreme Court in Raghunath v. State of Maharashtra (AIR. 1971 SC. 2137) and the decision of this Court in Arya Antherjanam v. State of Kerala (1976 KLT. 446) could be cited as authority for this proposition. already incurred by it. The decision of the Supreme Court in Raghunath v. State of Maharashtra (AIR. 1971 SC. 2137) and the decision of this Court in Arya Antherjanam v. State of Kerala (1976 KLT. 446) could be cited as authority for this proposition. I would therefore reject the contention that with the death of the declarant the liability of the first petitioner, or for that matter any of the legal representatives of the deceased declarant to surrender the excess land held by the (statutory) family ceased. The position, however, would have been different if, with the death of the declarant, the family got extinguished, or the declarant was an adult unmarried person or the sole surviving member of a family". A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Narayana Pillai and Kader JJ. in C.R.P. Nos.3217 of 1976 and 3570 of 1976, had to consider the correctness of the decisions in Janaki Amma's case (1979 KLT 271), and C.R.P. 1677 of 1977 (unreported). The Division Bench in its judgment held as follows: "As the prohibition contained in S 83 is to the holding of excess land by a person and vesting in Government under S.86 is of excess land held by him on the date of determination of the excess land under S.85(5)(c) of the Act, vesting in the case of an adult unmarried person can take place only if he is alive also on the date of determination of excess land. That was what was held in Janaki Amma's case (1979 KLT. 271). In that case on account of death of an adult unmarried person before determination of the excess land under S.85(5)(c) of the Act the proceeding was held to have abated. In Aleyamma's case (CRP. 1677/77) it had to be considered whether the principle in Janaki Amma's case could be extended to other persons also. What was held there was that it could be applied only to cases of death of adult unmarried person or sole surviving member of family and not to other cases. Reasons for taking the views taken in Janaki Amma's case and Aleyamma's case are given in detail in those decisions and it is unnecessary to repeat them as we accept them laying down the correct law and we are in complete agreement with all that is stated in those decisions. There is really no conflict between those two decisions." 10. Reasons for taking the views taken in Janaki Amma's case and Aleyamma's case are given in detail in those decisions and it is unnecessary to repeat them as we accept them laying down the correct law and we are in complete agreement with all that is stated in those decisions. There is really no conflict between those two decisions." 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the entire properties belonged to the deceased declarant who was entitled to hold land within the ceiling area applicable to his family. This does not mean that the family is the owner of the property. The legal consequence of the death of the declarant is that the entire property devolves on his legal heirs namely his wife and all the children including those who were majors on 1-1-1970 and those born subsequently. Vesting of excess land in the Government takes place under S 86 of the Act only on determination of the excess land for surrender under S.85 and until such determination the ownership of the land vests in the deceased declarant and his legal representatives on his death. It is not shown that the legal representatives own or hold land in excess of the ceiling area for surrender under S 85 of the Act Even if they hold any land in excess of the ceiling area that is a matter for determination under S.87 of the Act, with respect to the total extent of land owned or held by each of the "person" among the legal representatives. Sub-section (2) of S.82 of the Act extracted below is a complete answer to this argument "82 (2). For the purposes of this Chapter all the lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family". In view of these specific provisions in the Act, there is no substance in the argument that on the death of the declarant, the property devolves on his personal heirs, and the liability of the declarant to surrender the excess land lapses. In view of these specific provisions in the Act, there is no substance in the argument that on the death of the declarant, the property devolves on his personal heirs, and the liability of the declarant to surrender the excess land lapses. Sub-section (2) of S.82 enacts a legal fiction that for the purpose of Chapter III of the Act relating to the determination and surrender of excess land all lands owned or held by a member of the family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family itself There is therefore no question of postponement of vesting of the estate of a deceased member of a family in his personal heirs until such time as the excess land due for surrender is determined. All the lands owned or held by the deceased member as well as every other member of the family shall be deemed to vest in the family itself, and the excess land owned or held by the family shall vest in the Government under S.86 of the Act on determination of such excess land in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act. 11. The learned Government Pleader brings to my notice the provisions of sub-section 6 (A) of S.85 of the Act introduced by S.6 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance 5 of 1981. Sub-section (6A) is extracted below: "(6A). 11. The learned Government Pleader brings to my notice the provisions of sub-section 6 (A) of S.85 of the Act introduced by S.6 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance 5 of 1981. Sub-section (6A) is extracted below: "(6A). For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that proceedings for the determination of the extent and other particulars of any land, the ownership or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered by an adult unmarried person or a family, shall not abate on the death of that adult unmarried person or, as the case may be, the sole surviving member of that family where it consists of only one person, or the member of that family who filed the statement under this section or under S.85A in the case of any other family, but shall be continued against the legal representatives of such adult unmarried person or sole surviving member or the remaining member or members of such family, as the case may be, and such legal representatives or remaining member or members shall be bound to surrender the same extent of land as such adult unmarried person or sole surviving member or such family would have been liable to surrender, if such adult unmarried person or sole surviving member or the person who filed such statement, as the case may be, were alive on the date of determination of the extent and other particulars of the land." By virtue of this provision introduced by the amendment, the proceedings initiated by the Taluk Land Board do not lapse on the death of the declarant, whether he is an adult unmarried person, the sole surviving member of a family, or a member of a family who submitted a ceiling return. Excess land for surrender to the Government is to be determined as on the date notified under S.83 of the Act. A Full Bench of this Court in Ayidru & Others v. State of Kerala & Others (1976 KLT 362) stated thus in Para.6: "6. Excess land for surrender to the Government is to be determined as on the date notified under S.83 of the Act. A Full Bench of this Court in Ayidru & Others v. State of Kerala & Others (1976 KLT 362) stated thus in Para.6: "6. When the above provisions contained in Chapter III of the Act are read as a whole it becomes evident that the underlying legislative intent is that the imposition of the ceiling on land holdings with the consequential obligation to surrender to Government all the lands owned or held by persons in excess of the ceiling area should become fully effective on the notified date, namely 1-1-1970 on the basis of the facts and circumstances then obtaining and that all the rights and obligations pertaining to the said matter should become crystallised on the said date, though the actual working out or enforcement of such rights and liabilities is left to be carried out subsequently in accordance with the procedure laid down in that behalf." The liability of a person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area to surrender the excess land to the Government is incurred on the date notified under S.83 of the Act, even though there is a postponement of vesting of such excess land in the Government until after its determination in accordance with the Act. The liability to surrender excess land incurred by the person holding such excess land shall not lapse on his death and his liability also devolves on his legal representatives along with his estate. On his death his estate vests in his personal heirs but the personal heirs take the estate subject to the liability that the deceased had incurred for surrender of excess land in his hands on the notified date This Court in the decision reported in 1979 KLT. On his death his estate vests in his personal heirs but the personal heirs take the estate subject to the liability that the deceased had incurred for surrender of excess land in his hands on the notified date This Court in the decision reported in 1979 KLT. 271 held that the proceedings initiated for determination of the excess land for surrender by an adult unmarried person or a sole surviving member of the family abates on his death, for the reason that "there is no provision in the Act for the continuation of the proceedings on the death of the person who filed the statement under S.85 (2) of the Act." It is to provide for such contingency that the Ordinance is enacted adding sub-section (6A) to S.85 of the Act.making provision for continuation of proceedings against the legal representatives of a deceased declarant who is an adult unmarried person or a sole surviving member of a family liable to surrender excess land owned or held by him on 1-1-1970. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that sub-section (6A) of S.85 introduced by the Ordinance provides for continuance of proceedings for determination of the excess land for surrender against the surviving member or members of the family on the death of the declarant Sub-section (6 A) requires the remaining member or members of the family to surrender the excess land, owned or held by the family on the notified date as though the member of the family who submitted a ceiling return were alive on the date of determination of the extent and other particulars of the land to be surrendered to the Government. The learned Counsel points out that on the death of the declarant who is a member of a family as defined in the Act, his estate devolves on his personal heirs and not necessarily on the surviving members of his family. Succession to the estate of a deceased member of the family may be testamentary or intestate. There is nothing in the Act to interdict testamentary succession or inheritance on intestacy. In the present case the surviving members of the "family" of the deceased declarant are only his wife and six children who were minors on 1-1-1970. Succession to the estate of a deceased member of the family may be testamentary or intestate. There is nothing in the Act to interdict testamentary succession or inheritance on intestacy. In the present case the surviving members of the "family" of the deceased declarant are only his wife and six children who were minors on 1-1-1970. Besides these members there are four other children of the deceased declarant who are also his legal representatives Two of them were majors on 1-1-1970 and two were born subsequent to 111970. All these persons are the legal heirs of the deceased declarant. Sub-section (6A) requires the surviving members of the family to surrender the excess land in the bands of the family as on 1-1-1970 as determined by the Taluk Land Board. The entire land of the family in the present case belonged to the deceased declarant and on his death four other children of the deceased who. are not members of the family as defined in the Act, are also entitled to inheritance and the estate devolves and vests also in them on the death of the declarant. It is therefore submitted that the surviving members of the statutory family are not competent to surrender excess land owned or held by the family on the notified date as it has devolved also on persons who are not members of the family. I do not find there is any such difficulty as is apprehended by the learned Counsel. As per sub-section (2) of S.82 extracted above, all the lands owned or held by the deceased declarant shall be deemed to be owned or held by the 'family' of which the declarant was a member for the purpose of Chapter III of the Act, and by virtue of this legal fiction such lands vest in the family, and the surviving members are 'bound to surrender the excess land, determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The estate of the deceased declarant would devolve on his legal representatives subject only to the provisions of Chapter III of the Act. The liability to surrender excess land is incurred by the family on 1-1-1970 and the legal representatives of the deceased can inherit the estate of the deceased subject to this liability for surrender of excess land held by the family of which the deceased was a member. 13. The liability to surrender excess land is incurred by the family on 1-1-1970 and the legal representatives of the deceased can inherit the estate of the deceased subject to this liability for surrender of excess land held by the family of which the deceased was a member. 13. The next point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners 2 and 3 who are not members of the statutory family being major sons of the deceased declarant on the date notified under S.83 of the Act are also entitled to notice of the proceedings by the Taluk Land Board. It is contended that all the legal representatives of the deceased declarant are persons interested in the land and all of them are entitled to be heard in the proceedings for determination of the excess land to be surrendered by the statutory family of the deceased declarant Sub-section (5) of S.85 of the Act requires the Taluk Land Board by order to determine the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered. Sub-section (6) of S.85 provides that in determining the identity of land for surrender, the Taluk Land Board shall accept the choice indicated by the declarant but where the interest of other persons are likely to be affected an opportunity should be given to those interested to be heard before an order for surrender is passed. Sub-section (7) of S 85 authorises the Taluk Land Board to take suo mote proceedings to determine the extent and other particulars of the land to be surrendered by the person who has failed to submit a ceiling return on intimation of that fact from the Land Board. The proviso to sub-section (7) requires the Taluk Land Board to give an opportunity to all persons interested in the land to be heard before such determination. S.100-C enacts that for the purpose of performing its functions under the Act, the Taluk Land Board shall have all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in respect of matters enumerated including any other matter which may be pres-cribed. S.100-C enacts that for the purpose of performing its functions under the Act, the Taluk Land Board shall have all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in respect of matters enumerated including any other matter which may be pres-cribed. Sub-section (4) of S.101 provides that if any question arises as to whether any land is exempted under S.81, the question shall be decided by the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board as the case may be in such manner and having regard to such matters as may be prescribed, and the decision of the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board shall be final R.91A of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) R.1970 specifically states that the Land Board and the Taluk Land Board shall have the power to implead as parties in any proceeding pending before it, the assignees of parties or the legal representatives of deceased parties; and the provisions of S.146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order XXII of the First Schedule to the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to the proceedings for impleading the assignees or the legal representatives. R.12(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) R.1970 provides for the issue of the draft statement and notice under sub-rule (1) to all persons so far as may be known who have or are likely to have claim to or interest in ownership or possession or both of the lands indicated in the draft statement as lands to be surrendered. There can hardly beany doubt mat the petitioners 2 and 3 and the other legal representatives of the deceased declarant are persons interested in the land to be surrendered as excess land owned or possessed by the family of the declarant. The estate of the deceased declarant who owned and possessed lands involved in the ceiling case, devolves on bis legal representatives subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of S.82 of the Act. The legal representatives are therefore persons interested in the land, entitled to be heard before the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered are determined by the Taluk Land Beard. The legal representatives are therefore persons interested in the land, entitled to be heard before the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered are determined by the Taluk Land Beard. Even in the absence of a specific provision for notice to all persons interested such a provision should be implied as ingrained in sub-section 5 of S 85 itself as it requires the Taluk Land Board to determine the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered. The Supreme Court in State of Gujarat & Others v. Ambalal Haiderbhai and Others (1976 (3) S.C.C. 495), has stated the law in Para.4 of its judgment thus: "4. As observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala (1969 (1) SCR. 317: AIR. 1969 SC 198) and reiterated in A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970) (1) SCR. 457: (1969 (2) SCC. 262) rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its content should be for a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held, and the constitution and nature of duties of the tribunal or the body of persons appointed for that purpose". I have therefore no doubt that petitioners 2 and 3 and all other legal representatives of the deceased declarant are entitled to be heard by the Taluk Land Board before it determines the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered. In the present case, notice of the proceedings were issued only to the declarant's wife who is the Ist petitioner in this C.R.P. There was no notice to the other legal representatives of the deceased declarant. 14. The impugned order of the Taluk Land Board has to be set aside for want of notice to all the legal representatives of the deceased declarant who arc all persons interested in the land to be surrendered by the Ist petitioner representing the family of the deceased declarant. 15. The learned Counsel has raised several questions on the merits of the decision of the Taluk Land Board. 15. The learned Counsel has raised several questions on the merits of the decision of the Taluk Land Board. But since I find that the order of the Taluk Land Board is defective for want of notice to the persons interested it is not necessary for me to examine the correctness of its decision on the various points of objections to the draft notice raised by the 1st petitioner. 16. The result is I set aside the impugned order of the Taluk Land Board and remand the case to the Board for fresh disposal after notice to all the legal representatives of the deceased declarant, and after affording them also a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. The objections raised by the petitioners on the merits of the case will also be considered by the Taluk Land Board afresh. The C.R.P. is allowed as indicated above. I make no order as to costs.