Judgment :- 1. The short point that arises for consideration is whether in a ceiling proceedings reopened by virtue of S.85(6A) inserted by Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 19 of 1981 in S.85 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,1 of 1964, ceiling can be fixed by taking into account the lands of the deceased declarant and the lands owned individually by the legal heir at the time when the proceedings were reopened. In this case, the petitioner's father filed a ceiling return on 14-12-1972 showing that he holds a total extent of 9 68 acres as the sole surviving member of a family. Then, on 6-9-1974 he died. That was before the issue of the draft statement on 27-6-1978. The draft statement was served on the petitioner-son who is the only legal representative of the deceased declarant. The petitioner-son filed his objections on 1-8-1978. Thereupon; on 21-11-1978 the Taluk Land Board dropped the proceedings in which the petitioner's deceased father filed the return, on the basis of a decision of this Court reported in Janaki Amma v. State of Kerala (19)9 KLT. 271). It was thereafter that S.85 of Kerala Act 1 of 1964 was amended by inserting sub-s. (6A) which empowered the Taluk Land Board to continue the proceedings where the declarants died before the issue of the draft statement. S.7 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 19 of 1981 contains transitory provisions to reopen the proceedings in cases where the proceedings were dropped consequent on the death of the declarant. 2. The Taluk Land Board reopened the proceedings as per its order dated 18-8-1981 by virtue of S.85(6A) inserted by the Amendment Act 19 of 1981. The petitioner filed his objections. Then, on 28-9-1981 the authorised officer, as per his report, pointed out that the draft statement issued to the petitioner has taken in land originally owned by the petitioner in his individual capacity and also belonging to third parties. But the Taluk Land Board by its order impugned in this civil revision fixed the ceiling of the petitioner taking into account the lands originally owned by him in his individual capacity and the lands he is said to have inherited from the declarant, his deceased father. The question is whether this is proper. 3. But the Taluk Land Board by its order impugned in this civil revision fixed the ceiling of the petitioner taking into account the lands originally owned by him in his individual capacity and the lands he is said to have inherited from the declarant, his deceased father. The question is whether this is proper. 3. Sub-section (6A) inserted in S.85 of Kerala Act 1 of 1964 by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1981 reads: "(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 of 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." In Janaki Amma's case (1979 KLT. 271) Bhaskaran J., as he then was, held that the liability to surrender excess land is that of the person who filed the statement under S.85(2) or 85A(1) of the Act as the case may be, on the vesting order being passed under S.86(1), and in as much as there is no provision in the Act for continuation of the proceedings initiated against such persons, the legal heir is under no legal obligation to account for the surplus land, if any, held by the deceased declarant, and her liability, if any, is confined to what is provided for under S.87 of the Act. It was to get over the above decision that sub-section (6A) was inserted in the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964. S.7 of Amendment Act 19 of 1981 contains transitory provisions for reopening ceiling cases disposed of following the decision in Janaki Amma's case. It was by virtue of S.7 that the ceiling case in question was reopened. But it cannot be forgotten that sub-section (6A) only enables the Taluk Land Board to fix the ceiling in cases where the declarant dies after the filing of the ceiling return. No power is conferred on the Taluk Land Board to include lands originally owned by the legal representative or legal representatives in his or their individual capacity in the total extent of the lands of the deceased declarant and fix the ceiling The ceiling that is to be fixed in the case being only the ceiling of the deceased declarant, the land owned or possessed by the legal representative of the deceased declarant in his personal capacity cannot be taken into account. If, as a matter of fact, the legal representative has lands in excess of his ceiling limit including the lands he has inherited from the deceased declarant, it is under S.87 that he has to be proceeded against. This cannot be done in the ceiling case initiated against the deceased declarant and that too by virtue of the powers conferred by sub-section 6(A) of S.85. For this short reason, the order impugned is set aside. It is made clear that the Taluk Land Board will be at liberty to take fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. 4. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above. No costs. Allowed.