Judgment :- 1. The petitioner challenges Exts. P1 and P3. Ext. P1 is a proceeding of the Tahsildar by which he has demanded land tax in respect of properties held by the petitioner until 1-1-1970. Ext. P3 is a notice of sale of immovable properties in the course of proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act in enforcement of the demand under Ext. P1. The petitioner contends that, by reason of the vesting of the land in question in terms of S.72(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, all encumbrances which existed in respect of the land had been discharged and the petitioner was no longer liable to pay taxes due in respect of the land and proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act are not sustainable. The Government Pleader in answer to this contention submits that the taxes demanded are those payable under S.5 of the Kerala Land Tax Act and they were not encumbrances created by the landowners, as postulated under S.72(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, but public revenue due on the land and therefore, recoverable by attachment and sale of the defaulter's properties in terms of S.5 and other provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The Government Pleader refers to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kurikilal Bhagavathi Devaswom v. State of Kerala, 1977(2) I.L.R.618. 2. In the light of the decision of the Division Bench, the contention of Shri. Warrier on behalf of the petitioner on this point is unsustainable. 3. Shri. Warrier further submits that assuming that the provisions of S.72(1) do not have the effect of discharging the liability which arose under S.5 of the Land Tax Act, such liability which arose prior to 1-1-1970 is no longer enforceable against the landlord by reason of S.72-S of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. He submits that the cultivating tenant is the person liable for such tax subsequent to 1-1-1970 and the landlord after that date is no longer liable. As a result of this Section, counsel submits, the liability is shifted from one person to another just as the land was vested in the Government for the purpose of transferring it to the cultivating tenant. 4. S.72S reads: 72S. Liability for assessment after the date of vesting under S.72. As a result of this Section, counsel submits, the liability is shifted from one person to another just as the land was vested in the Government for the purpose of transferring it to the cultivating tenant. 4. S.72S reads: 72S. Liability for assessment after the date of vesting under S.72. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract, where the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, in respect of a holding have vested in the Government under S.72, the cultivating tenant of that holding shall be liable to pay the basic tax payable in respect of that holding under the said Act and other taxes and cesses due in respect of that holding. (2) In the case of a holding or part of a holding in respect of which an application for resumption under the provisions of this Act is rejected the cultivating tenant shall be liable to pay the basic tax and other taxes and cesses in respect of such holding or part of the holding, as the case may be, with effect on and from the date notified under sub-section (1) of S.72." The object of this Section, as of the enactment itself, is not to fasten a liability upon the cultivating tenant or to confer a benefit on the landlord in respect of matters relating to the period of tenancy. The object of the legislature was to confer a benefit on the tenant by transferring to him land which had become vested in the Government on the appointed day. But once the land has been assigned to the tenant he is no longer a tenant, but is himself the owner, and therefore like any other owner becomes for the first time liable under S.5 of the Kerala Land Tax Act. S.72S is merely clarificatory of what is otherwise, in my view, clear. As from the date on which the tenant becomes the owner of the land, of which he was until then only a tenant, he being the owner is liable to pay tax under the Land Tax Act. But his liability is only prospective and he cannot be fastened with any liability which arose prior to 1-1-1970. As from the date on which the tenant becomes the owner of the land, of which he was until then only a tenant, he being the owner is liable to pay tax under the Land Tax Act. But his liability is only prospective and he cannot be fastened with any liability which arose prior to 1-1-1970. That was the liability of the landlord himself and the then tenant had no liability for that period. Even without S.72S the position admits of no doubt. That provision only makes it clear that for the period subsequent to 1-1-1970 the landlord has no liability and the tenant is liable. Consequently for the period prior to 1-1-1970, the tenant has no liability and the liability is solely that of the landlord. 5. In the present case the petitioner was the landlord until 1-1-1970 and the present demand is in respect of the past liability covering the period until 1-1-1970. 6. The Government Pleader submits that the notice of demand does not include any amount covering the period subsequent to 1-1-1970 in respect of the vested land. This submission is recorded. 7. Accordingly I see no substance in the contentions of the petitioner on both the points. The Original Petition is dismissed. No costs.