Judgment :- 1. The point that arises in this civil revision is whether proviso (b) to S.84(1A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,1 of 1964 prohibits the restoration of excess lands surrendered in a ceiling case if the lands surrendered are lands other than the lands gifted and which gift was validated with retrospective effect by Act 27 of 1979. 2. The challenge in this civil revision is against the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Kasaragod rejecting an application under S.85(10) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964, for short the Act, for restoration of lands surrendered in a ceiling case in view of the validation of gifts made by S.84(1A) of the Act inserted by the amending Act 27 of 1979. An extent of 4.03 acres was surrendered as excess lands in pursuance of an order of the Taluk Land Board passed on 12-2-1976. This was because a gift deed dated 21-8-1974 was treated by the Taluk Land Board as invalid. Since Act 27 of 1979 validated such gifts, the petitioners submitted an application under S.85(10.) of the Act for restoration as the declarant in the ceiling case would have only lands within the ceiling limits if the gift was not ignored. Though the Taluk Land Board upheld the validity of the gift, it did not order restoration for the reason that the lands surrendered were already assigned on registry under S.96 of the Act as early as 16-6-1976. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in this case the lands surrendered as excess lands were not the lands gifted and hence the fact that those lands were assigned on registry before the commencement of amending Act 27 of 1979 cannot stand in the way of restoration of these lands as the prohibition in proviso (b) to S.84(1A) can only affect the lands governed by sub-section (1A) which can only be the lands gifted. It was also contended that if the proviso applies to any land assigned on registry, subsections (10), (11) and (12) of S.85 also inserted by the same amending Act 27 of 1979 will become otiose. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the order of the Taluk Land Board refusing -restoration on the around that the excess lands surrendered were already assigned on registry before the comtencement of Act 27 of 1979 is illegal and hence should be interfered with. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the order of the Taluk Land Board refusing -restoration on the around that the excess lands surrendered were already assigned on registry before the comtencement of Act 27 of 1979 is illegal and hence should be interfered with. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel referred to R. N. Sons Ltd. v. Asst. Sales-tax Commissioner (AIR. 1955 SC. 765), Abdul Jabar v. State of J. & K. (AIR 1957 SC.281), S. P. K. Oil Mills v. Subhash Chandra (AIR. 1961 SC. 1596), Kedarnath J. M. Co. v. G. T. Officer (AIR. 1966 SC. 12), Sales-tax Officer Jabalpur v. Hanuman Prasad (AIR. 1967 SC. 565), Dwaraka Prasad v. Dwaraka Das Saraf ((1976)1 S C.C.128) and Mariam v. Xavier (1971 KLT. 709). Reference was also made to Cross on Statutory Interpretation, 1976 Edn. pages 104 and 105. 4. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that S.84(1A) and the provisos form part of the provisions contained in Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 dealing with restriction on ownership and possession of land in excess of ceiling area and disposal of excess lands, and contended that they cannot be interpreted in isolation. It was then contended that by sub-section (1A) certain gifts were validated and that validation can only be subject to the restriction contained in the provisos to the sub-section as is clear from the sub-section read as a whole. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel also relied on the decision in Gopalan Nair v. Taluk Land Board (1981 KLT. 434). 5. S.84 of the Act declares voluntary transfers by persons holding or owning lands in excess of the ceiling area to be null and void. Sub-section (1) of the section saves certain transactions including gifts to specified category of persons. This court held that gifts after 1-1-1970, the date from which the ceiling provisions in the Act came into force, will not be saved. It was to get over this decision that sub-section (1A) was inserted in S.84 by Kerala Act 27 of 1979 validating, with retrospective effect, gifts similar to those mentioned in sub-section (1) and made between 1-1-1970 and 5-11-1974. But proviso (b) to sub-section (1A) says that the validation will not apply to lands already assigned on registry under S.96 before the commencement of Act 27 of 1979. But proviso (b) to sub-section (1A) says that the validation will not apply to lands already assigned on registry under S.96 before the commencement of Act 27 of 1979. So, if by ignoring the gifts now validated excess lands were got surrendered, the validation will benefit the declarant only if the excess lands were not assigned on registry. What the sub-section saves with retrospective effect is certain gifts by persons owning or holding excess lands. In view of the proviso (b), the benefit conferred by sub-s. (1A) will not extend to any excess lands surrendered and assigned on registry before the commencement of Act 27 of 1979. It is any land surrendered. Not only that, the new sub-s. (1A) is to reduce the total extent of the lands of the declarant for the purposes of ceiling. This affects the liability to surrender of excess lands. Excess lands directed to be surrendered ignoring the gifts saved, and actually surrendered, can be the lands gifted or lands not gifted by the declarant. Not only that, there is no provision in the Act to get at a land validly assigned on registry under S.96 of the Act. So, there is no meaning in the contention that the proviso will apply only if the excess land surrendered is the land gifted. There is also no force in the contention that if the proviso applies to lands other than the gifted lands, sub-ss. (10), (11) and (12) inserted in S.85 by Kerala Act 27 of 1979 will become otiose. First of all, application for restoration can be made only if there is right for the same under S.84(IA). In a case where the excess lands taken were already assigned on registry no application for restoration can be filed. But, if the lands were yet to be assigned, and in respect of the same there was an offer and acceptance and payment of first instalment of purchase price under R.31 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970, the person who accepted the offer will have to be heard before he is denied the lands. So, on the application for restoration he will have to be heard. So, on the application for restoration he will have to be heard. If the application for restoration is filed - before the actual assignment of the lands on registry under R.30(2) of the rules, it will have to be allowed with notice to the person who accepted the offer and deposited the purchase price. So, for the application of sub-ss. (10), (11) and (12) of S.85 it is immaterial whether the lands surrendered are lands gifted or not. 6. In the above view of the matter, the order of the Taluk Land Board rejecting the petitioners' application under S.85(10) of the Act and refusing restoration does not call for any interference by this Court. The civil revision is hence dismissed. No costs.