Judgment :- 1. Pursuant to the order of remand passed by this court in CRP No. 2177/76A, the Taluk Land Board, Canannore, took the ceiling case of C.P. Kadeeja, W/o. K.V. Kunhabdulla, back to file and disposed of the same by the order under challenge. 2. The petitioners are two interested persons. Their case is that the land measuring 14 acres in extent in RS No. 87/10A of Vayakkara Village, belongs to them and hence the same requires to be excluded from the account of the declarant. In proof of the said case, the petitioners produced before the Taluk Land Board the following documents. "1. Basic tax receipt dt. 26-3-76 for having paid basic tax for an extent of 13 acres of land in RS No. 87/10A for the period from 63-64 to 75-76. 2. One rent receipt dt. 12-8-69 for having paid rent to the Land Board for the period from 1964 to 69. 3. Un-registered agreement dt. 30-10-63. 4. Certified copy of the plaint in OS 91/76. 5. Certified copy of the revised judgment in OS 91/76 dt. 16-2-77 of the Munsiff Court, Payyannur": These documents it is said, would show that the petitioners have been in possession of the land in dispute prior to 1-4-1964. The authorised officer who bad been deputed by the Taluk Land Board under S.105A(2) to make local enquiry, has submitted the following report: 1 invite attention to the reference cited. Necessary enquiry has been conducted in this case. Enquiry shows that the land in RS No. 87/10A of Vayakkara amsom Naramba desom (old Sy. No. 30/1) was originally belonged in jenmam to Kuttoor Vengayil Yesoda Amma of Payyannur. In 1960 the original Jenmi of the above property had leased out an extent of 13 acres of land to one Seera Valappil Moideen, S/o. Ammadkutty. Ezhome amsom desom for an amount of Rs. 130/-. Meanwhile a dispute arise between the above said Moideen and Sri. K.V.M. Kunhavulla. in respect of the right over the property. The dispute was amicably settled. Sri. Seera Valappil Moideen executed a sale agreement on 30-10-1963 witnessed by (1) B. Mohammad Kunhi, (2) A. Mohammed Kunhi, (3) Kunhabdulla. Enquiry reveals that Sri. Kunhabdulla witness in the unregistered agreement mentioned above and Sri. K. V. Kunhabdulla, the declarant in TLB No. 165/73 CAN are one and same person. The dispute was amicably settled. Sri. Seera Valappil Moideen executed a sale agreement on 30-10-1963 witnessed by (1) B. Mohammad Kunhi, (2) A. Mohammed Kunhi, (3) Kunhabdulla. Enquiry reveals that Sri. Kunhabdulla witness in the unregistered agreement mentioned above and Sri. K. V. Kunhabdulla, the declarant in TLB No. 165/73 CAN are one and same person. After that the property described in the schedule of unregistered agreement is under the possession and enjoyment of one Kalladath Abu and (2) Tharamal Abbas till date. Almost all the improvements existing in the land were raised by the above two person and they have also paid rent to the Jenmi at 130/- upto 1979. Moreover they have also paid land tax in respect of the disputed property for the period from 1963-64 to 1975-76 (13 years). The lands covered by the unregistered sale agreement executed by Seera Valappil Moideen in favour of P. T. Abbas and K. Abu on 30-10-63 and the basic tax receipt. No. 90 of book No. 1455 dt. 26-3-76 relate to one and the same property and Sri. K. V. M. Kunhabdulla has no right over the property described in the unregistered agreement. The connected records with the reference cited are resubmitted herewith" 3. There is a further report of the Authorised Officer (this report appears to have been prepared after the case was remanded by the High Court) and it reads: "Objection O. Out of 21 acres of land in Sy. 87/10A shown in Taluk Land Board proceedings dt. 23-4-76,13 acres of land was in possession of (1) K. Aboo and (2) Sri. P. T. Abbas. They acquired this land from one Sundevalappil Moidu. Sri Moidu was holding the land on oral lease from 3-10-60. from the original jenmi Kuttoor Vengayil Yesoda Amma. It is clear from the above that the above land has never come to the possession of the declarant. Further the case records in OS 91/76 Sub-Court, Payyannoor also shows that the declarant has no possession right over this property. Hence this 13 acres of land in Sy. 87/10A Vayakkara Village has to be reduced from the total extent of land held by the declarant's family". From these reports it is clear that the land in dispute has been in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, much prior to 1-4-1964. Hence this 13 acres of land in Sy. 87/10A Vayakkara Village has to be reduced from the total extent of land held by the declarant's family". From these reports it is clear that the land in dispute has been in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, much prior to 1-4-1964. The Taluk Land Board, however, was not prepared to treat these reports as affording evidence in the case and this resulted in the passing of the order under challenge. 4. The counsel for the petitioner argues that inasmuch as the Land Board did not think it necessary to summon and examine the authorised officer with reference to the statements contained in these reports, the Taluk Land Board ought to have accepted the same in evidence and given a verdict in favour of the petitioners. To understand this argument it is essential to probe into the question, what is the probative value of the reports of the authorised officer? In order to determine this we have to understand the content of S.105 and 105(A) KLR. Act, for short the Act and R.138 to 141 of the Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules. S.105(A) confers power on the Government to appoint any officer not below the rank of a Revenue Inspector for bringing to the notice of the Land Tribunal or the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board any fact or information required by these authorities or for moving the Land Tribunal or the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board for any action necessary for the implementation of the provisions of the Act. The Taluk Land Board can depute the authorised officer to make local enquiry, investigation or inspection and to collect any data and the report and the records submitted by such. officer can be used without examining him as evidence in the proceedings before the said authority. Such authorised officer has the power to issue notice requiring any person to collect any information relating to the extent of the land held by such person, the number of members of the family if any, of such person, and such other particulars as may be prescribed. On receipt of such notice the person aforesaid shall furnish the information to the authorised officer within such time as may be specified for the purpose or within such further time not exceeding 30 days as he may in his discretion allow. On receipt of such notice the person aforesaid shall furnish the information to the authorised officer within such time as may be specified for the purpose or within such further time not exceeding 30 days as he may in his discretion allow. In case the person on whom the notice aforesaid has been served fails to furnish the information within the time specified the authorised officer can obtain, by following the prescribed procedure, the necessary information either by himself or through such agency as be thinks fit. The authorised officer after obtaining the information is bound to give to the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of making his representation and of adducing evidence, if any, in respect of such information and consider any such representation and evidence and pass such orders as he deems fit. 5. The above statements reflect the scheme of S.105 and 105(A). The above provisions however, in the absence of the provisions contained in R.138 to 141, may be unworkable. The procedure that should be followed by the authorised officer in the discharge of his functions is prescribed by R.138 to 141. 6. By virtue of the provisions contained in R.138 the authorised officer can, in addition to the information referred to in sub-section 1 of S.105, call for the following particulars namely classification of land, improvement on the land, details regarding members of the family and any other particulars which be deems necessary. The manner of obtaining the information is prescribed under R.139. Either he or his agent can obtain the information in the following manner namely: By making such enquiry as he or his agent may deem fit or by local inspection or by reference to any Government record or in such manner as the authorised officer may deem fit. As to how the information thus obtained by the authorised officer can be verified, is prescribed under R.140. This rule provides that after obtaining the information by following the procedure prescribed under R.139, the authorised officer shall fix a date on which the enquiry in respect of such informations will be held and shall issue notice to the person concerned. Along with the notice a copy of the statement showing the information shall also be furnished where ever necessary and unobjectionable. Along with the notice a copy of the statement showing the information shall also be furnished where ever necessary and unobjectionable. Thereafter on the date fixed for the enquiry or on such other day to which the enquiry may be adjourned, the authorised officer shall give to the person concerned a reasonable opportunity to adduce any documentary or oral evidence. The authorised officer has the power to examine such other person or admit such other documents as he thinks necessary to verify the correctness of the information furnished in the statement he had forwarded to the person on whom the notice of enquiry was served. The said proceedings however, is made subject to the provisions of the Act and the Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules and be governed as far as possible by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of: the issue and service of summons; the examination of parties and witnesses; the production of documents; the amendment of pleadings; the addition of parties; the reviewing of orders passed on ground of apparent error, local inspection and the passing of orders. 7. These provisions would suggest that the proceedings before the authorised officer are more akin to proceedings before a civil court. But the verdict of the authorised officer does not partake of the character of an enforceable order in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section 2 of S.105(A). The verdict, the authorised officer may give following the procedure prescribed under the provisions contained in S.105 and R.138 to 141 is asked to be treated as evidence which may be used without examining him, in the proceedings before the Taluk Land Board and the other authorities made mention of in sub-section 2 of S.105(A). 8. It is in this backdrop the probative value of the report of the authorised officer has to be considered. The report and the record submitted by the authorised officer, as provided for under sub-section 2 of S.105(A) are admissible in evidence without further proof. The report of the authorised officer, in the absence of any challenge against the same either from the side of the party concerned or from the authority which deputed the authorised officer to submit the report, must in the light of the provisions contained in S.105 and 105(A) read with R.138 to 141, be treated as conclusive proof of the matters stated therein. 9. 9. But that does not mean that the Land Tribunal, The Land Board or the Taluk Land Board deputing the authorised officer to do the work, has,; no power to reject the report at all. These authorities undoubtedly have the power to reject the report provided they, on the authorised officer being cross-examined by invoking the jurisdiction conferred on them under Subsection 3 of S.105(A) hold that the statements in the report do not reflect the true and correct state of affairs In the absence of any such examination, the report submitted by the authorised officer requires to be accepted. So much regarding the right of the authority concerned to reject the report of the authorised officer. 10. Regarding the right of the party to challenge the correctness of the report, the position is a little different, If he had opportunity to produce evidence before the authorised officer, but failed to produce them, he could yet challenge the correctness of the report before the authority concerned namely, the Land Tribunal, Land Board and Taluk Land Board as the case may be, the challenge however, is liable to be rejected unless he establishes that the report was drawn up without taking into account relevant evidence or the report is based on evidence collected behind his back. 11. It appears to be plain from these provisions of the Act, if not-indeed from the whole of it, that the object with which these provisions were enacted was to avoid avoidable delay in the disposal of ceiling cases. S.105A(3) has therefore been introduced advisedly in the Statute Book as a safety valve without which it would perhaps have not been possible for the authority concerned to probe into the correctness or otherwise of the statements contained in the reports. 12. The report of the authorised officer in the light of the principles stated above ought to have been accepted by the Taluk Land Board and declared that the land in dispute does not belong to the declarant and as such liable to be excluded from the purview of the ceiling case. 13. That part of the order by which the land in dispute has been directed to be included in the account of the declarant therefore is set aside. In all other respects the order is sustained The CRP is allowed in the manner indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. 13. That part of the order by which the land in dispute has been directed to be included in the account of the declarant therefore is set aside. In all other respects the order is sustained The CRP is allowed in the manner indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.