Judgment :- 1. This appeal is against the judgment of the learned single judge in O. P. No. 3188 of 1978. The relevant facts necessary fora disposal of this appeal may briefly be stated as follows: The Taluk Land Board, Chittur, made an order under S.85 (5) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act I of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the 22nd April, 1975 as per Ext. P1. On the 29th April, 1978 proceedings were initiated under S.85A of the Act by the Taluk Land Board and notice was issued as per Ext. P2 calling upon the respondent to show cause why the order made as per Ext. P1 should not be set aside and an appropriate order made. The respondent filed his objections on the 11th May, 1978 and the Taluk Land Board passed an order on 12th May, 1978 as per Ext. P4 under S.85(9) of the Act. By the said order, objections of the respondent to the maintainability of the proceedings were overruled, the order Ext. P1 was set aside and a fresh draft statement was issued. The matter is yet to be heard and finally decided on merits. The respondents challenged Ext. P4 order in O. P. No. 3188 of 1978 and took the stand that the Taluk Land Board had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under S.85 (9) of the Act as it has done in this case on the 29th April, 1978. The learned single judge accepted this contention of the respondent. He has held that the order under S.85 (5) having been passed on 22nd April 1975 it was governed by the period of limitation prescribed by S.85 (9) second proviso. The said proviso provides that the Taluk Land Board shall not initiate proceedings under sub-s. (9) of S.85 after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sought to be set aside, which has become final. The learned single judge took the view that the final order having been made under S.85 (5) on 22nd April, 1975 proceedings under S.85(9) could not be initiated after three years from 22-4-75. As admittedly the power of initiation of proceedings was exercised in this case on 29th April, 1978, the learned single judge has held that the Taluk Land Board had no jurisdiction to take action to initiate proceedings on that date. As admittedly the power of initiation of proceedings was exercised in this case on 29th April, 1978, the learned single judge has held that the Taluk Land Board had no jurisdiction to take action to initiate proceedings on that date. Though the transitory provisions of S.4 of Act 13 of 1978 were pressed into service, the learned single judge took the view that the same cannot have the effect of re-opening the orders which have become final by the operation of the prescribed period of limitation of three years. It is the said order that is challenged in this appeal. 2. The principal contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Taluk Land Board and the State Government is that the Taluk Land Board had jurisdiction on 29-4-1978 to initiate proceedings under sub-s. (9) of S.85 of the Act having regard to the transitory provisions of S.4 of Act 13 of 1978. 3. Before we deal with the principal contention urged in this case it is necessary to advert to the relevant statutory provisions and the legislative history. 4. S.85 of the Act deals with surrender of excess lands. Sub-section (5) of S 85 empowers the Taluk Land Board, among other things, to determine the extent and identity of the land which has been found to be in excess and which is required to be surrendered. Sub-s. (9) of S.85 of the Act, before its amendment on 1-10-1977 by Kerala Act 13 of 1978, read as follows: "The Taluk Land Board may, if it is satisfied that the extent of lands surrendered by, or assumed from, a person under S.86 is less than the extent of lands which he was liable to surrender under the provisions of this Act or that the lands surrendered by, or assumed from, a person were not lawfully owned or held by him, set aside its order under sub-s. (5) or sub-s. (7), as the case may be, in respect of such lands and shall proceed afresh under that sub-section: "Provided that the Taluk Land Board shall not set aside any order under this sub-section without giving the persons affected thereby an opportunity of being heard. Provided further that the Taluk Land Board shall not initiate any proceedings under this sub-section after the expiry of three years from the date on which the order sought to be set aside has become final." (Explanation omitted as unnecessary) It is clear from sub-s. (9) of S.85 of the Act that express power was conferred on the Taluk Land Board to set aside its own orders passed under sub-s. (5) and sub-s. (7) of S.85. Three years' period of limitation has been prescribed for the purpose of initiating proceedings for setting aside orders made under sub-s. (5) and sub-s. (7) of S.85. Though power has been conferred under sub-s. (9) of S.85 to sec aside orders where the land surrendered is less than the extent of land legally liable to be surrendered, there was no power in the Taluk Land Board to deal with situations where there is no direction to surrender any extent of land if it is later found that the person concerned was liable to surrender excess land. This Court ruled in Francis v. Taluk Land Board, Tellicherry reported in 1977 K. L. T. 187, that there is no provision empowering the Land Board to take action by way of reopening or revising its earlier orders in cases where no order directing surrender of excess land was made by it. This lacuna was made good by the Legislature by amending sub-s. (9) of S.85 of the Act and incorporating certain additional provisions under the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978. By S.2 of the Amending Act, sub-s. (9) of S.85 was amended. After the amendment, sub-s. (9) of S.85 reads as follows: "(9) The Taluk Land Board may, at any time, set aside its order under sub-s. (5) or sub-s. (7), as the case may be, and proceed afresh under that sub-section if it is satisfied that (a) the extent of lands surrendered by, or assumed from, a person under S.86 is less than the extent of lands which he was liable to surrender under the provisions of this Act, or (b) the lands surrendered by, or assumed from, a person are not. lawfully owned or held by him; or (c) in a case where a person is, according to such order, not liable to surrender any land, such person owns or holds lands in excess of the ceiling area: Provided that the Taluk Land Board shall not set aside any order under this sub-section without giving the persons affected thereby an opportunity of being heard. Provided further that the Taluk Land Board shall not initiate any proceedings under this sub-section after the expiry of three years from the date on which the order sought to be set aside has become final." (Explanation omitted as unnecessary) Another provision, which is relevant for the purpose of this case, is S.4 of the Amending Act, which contains the transitory provision. Sub-s. (1) of S.4 of the Amending Act, which is relevant for our purpose, may be extracted: "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board, as the case may be, may set aside any order passed by it under sub-s. (5) or sub-s. (7), as the case may be, of S.85 of the Principal Act and proceed afresh under that sub-section if it is satisfied that any person who, according to such order, was not liable to surrender any land, had owned or held, on the date of such order, land in excess of the ceiling area. Provided that the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board shall not (a) set aside any order under this sub-section without giving the persons affected thereby an opportunity of being beard; (b) initiate any proceedings under this sub-section after the expiry of one year from the commencement of this Act, By the amendment of sub-s. (9) of S.85, additional power was conferred on the Land Board to set aside orders passed under sub-s. (5) and sub-s. (7) of S.85. The period of limitation for invoking the powers under sub-s. (9) of S.85 which was fixed at 3 years before the amendment remained unaltered. S.4 of the Amending Act conferred powers identical with the powers under sub-s. (9) of S.85 of the principal Act, which power of initiation however can be exercised only within a period of one year after the commencement of the Amending Act. S.4 of the Amending Act conferred powers identical with the powers under sub-s. (9) of S.85 of the principal Act, which power of initiation however can be exercised only within a period of one year after the commencement of the Amending Act. It is necessary to point out at this stage that the Amending Act, Act 13 of 1978, was given retrospective effect from 1-10-1977. Therefore the power conferred by the transitory provisions of S.4 could be invoked only for a period of one year from 1-10-1977. It is thus clear under the provisions of sub-s. (9) of S.85 of the principal Act the power to set aside orders under sub-s. (5) of S.85 can be invoked within a period of three years from the date on which the order sought to be set aside has become final. The same can be invoked only within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Amending Act that is, within one year from 1-10-1977 in respect of cases which are covered by the transitory provisions contained in S.4 of the Amending Act. The principal question for consideration in this case is therefore as to the scope and ambit of the power conferred by S.4 of the Amending Act. 5. Amendment to the Kerala Land Reforms Act became necessary, attention of the Legislature having been drawn to the lacuna existing in the provisions of sub-s. (9) of S.85 of the Act, by the decision of this Court in Francis's case (1977 K.L.T. 187). By the time, the Amending Act was brought into force, several orders must have been passed by the Taluk Land Board declaring that several persons were not liable for surrendering any land. All such orders could not be re-opened even after the amendment to S.85 (9) of the Act if the period of limitation prescribed in the second proviso to S.85 (9) of the Act had expired. The intention of the Legislature was clear, to clothe the Taluk Land Boards with the powers to set aside orders so that the subject of the Act in preventing persons holding land in excess of the ceiling is not defeated. It is with a view to achieve this object that special provision was made by way of transitory provisions in S.4 of the Amending Act. It is with a view to achieve this object that special provision was made by way of transitory provisions in S.4 of the Amending Act. Power similar to the one conferred by sub-s. (9) of S.85 can be exercised under sub-s. (1) of S.4 of the Amending Act, for which purpose proceedings can be initiated within one year from the date of commencement of the Amending Act. As S.4 of the Amending Act has been incorporated to make good the deficiency in the principal Act, which was pointed out by this Court in Francis's case (1977 K.L.T. 187) it is not possible to agree with the view taken by the learned single judge that the orders passed under sub-ss. (5) and (7) of S.85 of the Act before the amendment cannot be set aside after the expiry of three years prescribed by the second proviso to sub-s. (9) of S.85 of the Act. Such cases are governed by the transitory provisions contained in S.4 of the Amending Act. S.4, which confers on the Taluk Land Board powers similar to the one conferred by sub-s. (9) of S.85 of the Act, starts with the non obstacle clause "notwithstanding anything contained in any law, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court ". This is to emphasise that notwithstanding the fact that the orders under sub-s. (5) and sub-s. (7) of S.85 have become final, they not having been set aside within the prescribed period of limitation of three years, power could be exercised for setting aside those orders in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (1) of S.4 of the Amending Act. We have no hesitation in taking the view that the transitory provisions contained in sub-s. (1) of S.4 of the Amending Act can be invoked for the purpose of setting aside the orders passed under S.85 (5) and 85 (7) of the principal Act, which had become barred by limitation, by the time the Amending Act came into force on 1st October, 1977. Sub-s. (1) of S.4 of the Amending Act makes it clear that the power conferred under the said provision for initiation of proceedings to set aside the orders passed under sub-s. (5) or sub-s. (7) of S.85 cannot be exercised after the expiry of one year from the date of commencement of the Amending Act. Sub-s. (1) of S.4 of the Amending Act makes it clear that the power conferred under the said provision for initiation of proceedings to set aside the orders passed under sub-s. (5) or sub-s. (7) of S.85 cannot be exercised after the expiry of one year from the date of commencement of the Amending Act. Emphasis is on the initiation of proceedings and not on the passing of final orders. If the proceedings are initiated for setting aside the orders passed under sub-s. (5) and sub-s. (7) of S.85 within the specified time, the actual exercise of the power for setting aside the orders can be exercised at any time thereafter and even after the expiry of one year from 1-10-1977, the date of commencement of the Amending Act. The clear effect of the transitory provisions contained in S.4 of the Amending Act is to clothe the Taluk Land Board with the power to set aside orders passed under sub-s. (5) and (7) of S.83 before 1-10-1977, the date of commencement of the Amending Act. The power of initiation of proceedings under sub-s. (1) of S.4 of the Amending Act must however be exercised within a period of one year from 1-10-1977. Power under sub-section (1) of S.4 of the Amending Act can be exercised even in respect of orders which become barred by limitation by the operation of the second proviso to S.85(9) after 1-10-1977 within a period of one year from that date. But if the period of three years from the date of the order of the Taluk Land Board expires after one year from the date of commencement of the Act, the Taluk Land Board cannot exercise the powers conferred by S.4 of the Amending Act. Such cases are governed by sub-section (9) of S.85 of the Act and therefore power to set aside such orders can be invoked within a period of three years from the date of such orders. We would like to make it clear that such power can be exercised within a period of three years for setting aside the orders of the type falling under S.85(9) (a), (b) and (c). Any other view, in our opinion, would defeat the very purpose of the intendment of the Amending Act. 6. We would like to make it clear that such power can be exercised within a period of three years for setting aside the orders of the type falling under S.85(9) (a), (b) and (c). Any other view, in our opinion, would defeat the very purpose of the intendment of the Amending Act. 6. On the facts of this case, it is clear that proceedings were initiated on the 29th April, 1978, that is, after the commencement of the Amending Act and within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. The power sought to be exercised is in respect of orders made under sub-section (5) of S.85. Hence we have no hesitation in taking the view that the Taluk Land Board was well within its jurisdiction in initiating proceedings for setting aside the orders passed under sub section (5) of S.85 of the Act. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned single judge is set aside and O. P. No. 3188 of 1978 is dismissed. No costs. Allowed.