Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner has been directed by the Taluk Land Board to surrender excess land determined as 41.80 acres The only controversy surviving for consideration now is whether the exemption claimed by the revision petitioner for an area of 40 acres said to have been converted from private forest into rubber plantation is to be allowed. The Taluk Land Board rejected the claim for exemption under S.81 (1) (e) of Kerala Act 1 of 1964 (for short "the Act") on the ground that the conversion into rubber plantation was made after 1-1-1970. Though the Taluk Land Board thought that the clear-felling of the private forest might have been over by 1965, it did not choose to grant the exemption under S.81 (1) (d) of the Act. 2. Before going into this controversy, I shall refer to S.87 of the Kerala Act I of 1964. S.87 states that persons acquiring land after 1-1-1970 (the date notified under S.83) will have to account for the same and surrender land held in excess of the ceiling area, if any. The explanation to the section as it originally stood stated that where any land is exempted by or under S 81 and such exemption is in force on 1-1-1970, the notified date, such land shall, with effect from the date on which it ceases to be exempted, be deemed to be land acquired after 1-1-1970. In Raghavan v. State of Kerala and others (1977 KLT. 57), this Court held that the explanation to S.87 can apply only to exemptions contemplated under clauses (b) (h) and (k) of S.81 (1) and not to exemptions contemplated under the other clauses of S.81 (1). Poti, J. (as he then was) pointed out that this would result in large areas of exempted land such as private forests being converted after 1-1-1970 into valuable cocoanut gardens or other types of lands and persons owning such lands would be enabled to retain such large areas contrary to the legislative policy underlying the Act and suggested that this could be remedied only by legislative intervention. By Amending Act 27 of 1979, the explanation to S 87 has been recast. By Amending Act 27 of 1979, the explanation to S 87 has been recast. The amended Explanation states that where, after the date notified under S.83, any class of land specified in Schedule II has been converted into any other class of land specified in that Schedule or where any land exempt under S.81 from the provisions of Chapter III is converted into any class of land not so exempt and in consequence thereof, the total extent of land owned or held by a person exceeds the ceiling area, so much extent of land as is in excess of the ceiling area shall be deemed to be land acquired after the said date. In other words, if land which was say, private forest on 1-4-64 and therefore entitled to exemption under S, 81 of the Act has been converted after 1-1-1970 into cocoanut garden or any other class of land specified in Schedule II, it will cease to be exempted land on the date of conversion and the person concerned will have to account for the same and surrender land held in excess of ceiling area, if any. I am adverting to this because the Taluk Land Board came to the conclusion that the conversion in this case from private forest into rubber plantation was after 1-1-1970 and the correctness of this conclusion is challenged now If in case it is to be ultimately held that this is a case of conversion after 1-1-1970, even then this land cannot be directed to be accounted for in proceedings under S.85 of the Act. Separate proceedings will have to be initiated under S.87 of the Act, if the explanation to that section is attracted to the case. It is contended that the explanation is not attracted because conversion is into plantation. 3. According to the revision petitioner the entire 40 acres was a private forest as on 1-4-1964 and was converted into rubber plantation after 1-4-1964 and before 1-1-1970. Permit for clear felling was obtained from the Collector in 1963. Neither the date of the permit nor the period stipulated therein is known. 3. According to the revision petitioner the entire 40 acres was a private forest as on 1-4-1964 and was converted into rubber plantation after 1-4-1964 and before 1-1-1970. Permit for clear felling was obtained from the Collector in 1963. Neither the date of the permit nor the period stipulated therein is known. The Taluk Land Board thought that clear-felling might have been over by 1965 and that the land remained waste till the replanting took place in 1971 and therefore the land cannot be treated as private forest as on 1-1-1970 The factual basis for and the legal position implied in this conclusion are seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. What the Taluk Land Board implies is that land will be exempt as private forest only if it was the private forest on 1-1-1970 and that it is not sufficient that the land was private forest on 1-4-1964. 4. S.81 and 82 of the Act have been brought into force with effect from 1-4-1964 by virtue of a Government notification. S.81 (1) states that provisions of Chapter III, viz , the ceiling provisions, shall not apply to the various categories of land mentioned in clauses (a) to (u) therein. S.81, having come into force on 1-4-1964, it would follow that the exemption provision must be implemented and the dispute whether a particular land is exempt or not must be decided with reference to the state of affairs as on I-4-I964. The relevant date is not 1-1-1970. Though a contrary view had been taken in the decision of this Court reported in Thomas and others v. State of Kerala and others (1973 KLT. 973), it has not been followed by the later decisions of this Court in Narayanan Namboodiri v. Taluk Land Board, Perintalmanna (1975 KLT. 171 D. B.), in Ramunni Nair v. The State of Kerala (1976 KLT.632 FB )) and in Raghavan v. State of Kerala and others (1977 KLT. 57). That the relevant date with reference to which the question of exemption has to be adjudged is 1-4-1964 is also by implication affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M J. Thomas (1976 KLT. 566). There can be no doubt that state of affairs as on 1-4-1964 alone is relevant for the purpose of determining whether any particular land is exempt under S.81 (1) of the Act. 5. 566). There can be no doubt that state of affairs as on 1-4-1964 alone is relevant for the purpose of determining whether any particular land is exempt under S.81 (1) of the Act. 5. Till the Act was amended by the amending Act 27 of 1979, the Act contained no provision which would have the effect of compelling land exempted under S.81 (1) to be accounted for by a person for the purpose of determining the excess land, if any, held by him. Act 27 of 1979 has brought about a change in regard to exempted land converted after 1-1-1970 into non-exempted category It does not deal with conversion made during the period from 1-4-1964 to 1-1-1970 6. According to learned Government Pleader, if land exempt as on 1-4-1964 is converted into non-exempted category of land, that is, into any class of land specified in Schedule IT of the Act after 1-4-1964 and if subsequently but before 1-1-1970, it is converted into any other class of land specified in Schedule II, the exemption ceases to apply on account of S.82 (4) of the Act This submission can be better appreciated with reference to a concrete example. Take a land which was private forest as on 1-4-1964. Assume it was clear-felled in 1965 and thereafter for two years the land was kept as vacant land. In 1969 cocoanut plants (falling within Schedule II of the Act) or rubber plants (not falling within Schedule II but exempted category under S.81 (1) ) were planted. It is pointed out that though the land was private forest on 1-4-1964, it became a non-exempted category of land, that is, dry land in 1965 and in 1969 this dry land which is of a class of land specified in Schedule II was converted into cocoanut garden, that is. of a class of land specified in Schedule II or as plantation and therefore the application of S.82 (4) is attracted. It is necessary to understand the exact scope of S 82 (4) of the Act in order to answer this argument. 7. of a class of land specified in Schedule II or as plantation and therefore the application of S.82 (4) is attracted. It is necessary to understand the exact scope of S 82 (4) of the Act in order to answer this argument. 7. S.82 (4) states that where after the commencement of this Act, any class of land specified in Schedule II has been converted into any other class of land specified in that Schedule or into a plantation, the extent of land liable to be surrendered by a person owning, or holding such land shall be determined without taking into consideration such conversion. The 'date of the commencement of the Act" for the purpose of S.84 is undoubtedly 1-4-1964. This has been made clear by this Court in Ramunni Nair v. The State of Kerala (1976 KLT. 632) and by the Supreme Court in Mathew & others, v. Taluk Land Board (1979 KLT. 601). The date of the commencement of the Act i.e. 1-4-1964 is significant in two ways; that is, the nature of the land on a particular day and the conversion after that day. S 82 (4) will be attracted only if the land was of the nature specified in Schedule II on 1-4-1964. Again, only where the conversion was made after 1-4-1964 this provision will be attracted In other words, the meaning of this provision; would be clearly brought out if we read the provision in the following way: "Where any class of land of the nature specified in Schedule II at the commencement of the Act i. e. on 1-4-1964 has been, after the commencement of this Act, i. e. 1-4-1964, converted into any other class of land specified in that schedule or into plantation, the extent of land liable to be surrendered by a person owning or holding such land shall be determined without taking into consideration such conversion." If the provision is read in the above manner it will bring out correctly the legislative meaning. The time element is relevant vis-a-vis conversion as well as the nature of the property prior to conversion. On 1-4--964 the land must be of the class specified in Schedule II. After 1-4-1964 it must be converted into any other class of land specified in Schedule IT or a plantation. It is only where both these conditions are satisfied that the operation of the provision would be attracted. On 1-4--964 the land must be of the class specified in Schedule II. After 1-4-1964 it must be converted into any other class of land specified in Schedule IT or a plantation. It is only where both these conditions are satisfied that the operation of the provision would be attracted. If one of these conditions is not satisfied, the provision will not have any operation at all 8. The above proposition can be explained in the following way. One of the conditions is that the conversion must be after the commencement of the Act, viz , 1-4-1964. Of course if the conversion is after 1-1-1970 this provision will not be applicable though under the general scheme of Chapter III such a conversion will have to be ignored or in appropriate cases it may attract the operation of S.87 of the Act. Then there is the other condition; the land must be a class of land specified in Schedule II on 1-4-1964. If the land was a bouse site on 1-4-1964 and ceased to be house site and has become dry land thereafter, this condition is not fulfilled and S.82 (4) will not be attracted. If the land was plantation on 1-4-64 and has been converted into dry land or cocoanut garden thereafter (but before 1-1-70), this condition is not fulfilled. That is because on 1-4-1964 the land was not of the class specified in Schedule II If this be the proper way to understand the scope of S.82 (4), and I have no doubt that it is so, it would follow that whenever it is found that land is exempt by reason of its falling within one or the other of the clauses in S.81 (1) of the Act (I am not taking into consideration clauses (b), (h) and (k) which are not permanent exemptions or which are only exemptions of a temporary nature) it cannot be taken into account for the purpose of determining the ceiling area under S.85 whatever may have happened to its nature after 1-4-1964 and before 1-1-1970 and even thereafter, subject of course to S.87 In this view the fact that land which was private forest on 1-4-1964 has been converted into dry land in 1965 and thereafter into plantation in 1969 will not matter at all and the land continues to be exempted for the purpose of S.85 of the Act 9. The above view is fortified by some decisions of this court viz., P. R. Rantavarma Raja v. Land Board of Kerala (1973 KLT 918) and Thomas and others v. State of Kerala and others (1973 KLT 973) which took the view that it is only where the conversion is of the land of the nature falling within Schedule II that S.82 (4) will be attracted. This position has been also noticed in Kuruvilla v. Taluk Land Board and others (1980 KLT 53). 10. There is no dispute that some time prior to 1-4-1964 and at any rate in 1963, the entire block of 40 acres was a private forest as defined in the Act. The revision petitioner states that the process of clear-felling was not over by 1-4-1964 and therefore it continued to he private forest even thereafter. The authorised officer did not give any material data on this matter. However the Land Board thought that clear-felling might have been over in 1965. There was no data before the Taluk Land Board to arrive at such a conclusion The clear-felling might have been over in 1965 or some time earlier or some time later. This is a matter for the Taluk Land Board to go into after conducting proper enquiry If clear-felling was over and the land ceased to be private forest prior to 1-4-1964 it may have to be held that the exemption under S 81(1)(d) is not available. Even then the intention with which the clear-felling was done will have a bearing on the decision of such question. Clear-felling, under all circumstances will not make the land cease to be private forest. If felling was done with the intention of exploiting the forest wealth and to leave it for regeneration the land will not cease to be private forest. If clear felling was done with the intention of making the land nilam or garden or plantation the land cannot be treated as continuing to be private forest. The matter in this perspective has not been considered by the Taluk Land Board The Taluk Land Board was of the view that the crucial date for the purpose of considering exemption is 1-1-1970 and this view is clearly erroneous. The matter in this perspective has not been considered by the Taluk Land Board The Taluk Land Board was of the view that the crucial date for the purpose of considering exemption is 1-1-1970 and this view is clearly erroneous. Therefore the entire question will have to be considered de novo by the Taluk Land Board which will have to call for a detailed report from the Authorised Officer and also consider the materials placed before it by the revision petitioner and such other materials, which the revision petitioner may place before it hereafter. 11. In the result, I set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board. The case is remitted back to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. This revision is allowed, but without costs. Issue carbon copy of this order to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner on usual terms.