Judgment :- 1. This revision arises from a proceeding initiated by the petitioner under s85(8) of the K.L.R. Act. 2. From the facts available on record it is clear that the petitioner purchased the property in dispute in the year 1979, from the fourth respondent whose ceiling case, in the meantime was disposed of, directing him to surrender certain lands which according to the Taluk Land Board are lands held by him in excess of the ceiling area. 3. The procedure for determining the excess land of a person, is prescribed under S.83. Sub-section 8 of S.85 is relevant here. 4. To invoke the provisions of this sub-section one should prove that the conditions stipulated therein do exist because they are, what is called, conditions precedent. The conditions ate: (i) The Taluk Land Board must have determined the extent of the land to be surrendered by a person who owned or held land in excess of the ceiling area, on the date notified under S.83 namely 1-1-1970. (ii) The said determination should have been made without hearing any person interested. (iii) Such person can, within sixty days from the date of such determination, apply to the Taluk Land Board to set aside the order. 5. Taluk Land Board on being satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before it and contest bis claim shall set aside the order and thereafter proceed to decide the ceiling case either under sub-section 5 or sub-section 7 at the case may be. 6. The ratio legis thus discernible is that the person mentioned in this sub-section must be one who, prior to 1-1-1970 had acquired right over the land admittedly belonging to the declarant and therefore an investigation into such right was necessary, but no such investigation was made, to decide the issue whether the declarant owned or held land in excess of the ceiling area. To put it differently the said person should establish that as on 1-1-1970 he had an interest in the land which was sought to be included in the account of the declarant and therefore without determining the said right an order directing the declarant to surrender excess land cannot validly be passed. 7. To put it differently the said person should establish that as on 1-1-1970 he had an interest in the land which was sought to be included in the account of the declarant and therefore without determining the said right an order directing the declarant to surrender excess land cannot validly be passed. 7. Only such persons that is, persons who claimed rights over the land prior to 1-1-1970 and belonging to the declarant, can be treated as interested persons within the manning of sub-section 8 is made further clear by the provisions contained in Explanation to sub-section 1 of S.85 and the proviso to clause (c) of sub-section 6. The explanation enumerates certain transactions which will be recognised as valid for the purpose of determining the excess land. Those persons who claim right under such transactions are interested persons and as such without determining their rights no order to surrender excess land can validly be passed. Such rights also must exist prior to 1-1-1970 is clear from the wording of the explanation. Similarly the proviso to clause (c) of sub-section 6 makes it clear that while determining the question pertaining to choice of land by the declarant far surrender, if the interest of other persons are also likely to be affected, the Board shall, except in cases where such persons interested have agreed to the choice of land indicated by the declarant, afford an opportunity to such persons to be beard before orders directing surrender of excess land is passed. This proviso, from the scheme of the Section, is intended to safeguard the interest of transferors of land made mention of in clauses (a) and (b) of Clause IV of Sub-section 1 of S.85. The above clauses treat the transferees as transferees of declarants, who, going by the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960, was not holding land in excess of the ceiling area specified therein. 8. It is thus clear (from the scheme of S.85) that the 'person interested', as defined in Sub-section 8, can only be a person who claims rights in the land and which right came into being prior to 1-1-1970. 8. It is thus clear (from the scheme of S.85) that the 'person interested', as defined in Sub-section 8, can only be a person who claims rights in the land and which right came into being prior to 1-1-1970. It therefore follows that a person who purchased land from a declarant after the determination, by the Taluk Land Board or Land Board, of the excess land liable to be surrendered by him, cannot be said to be a 'person interested' within the meaning of sub-section 8 of S.85. 9. As already noted the petitioner ben in purchased the land in dispute from the declarant only after the determination by the Taluk Land Board, of the excess land liable to be surrendered by him. The petitioner therefore cannot be said to be an 'interested person' within the meaning of S.85. He therefore has no manner of right entitling him to move the Taluk Land Board under sub-section 8 of S.85. 10. If that be the position the application of the petitioner under S.85(8) is not maintainable in law. The Taluk Land Beard therefore has rightly rejected the application. The C. R. P. for the reasons stated above is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. Dismissed.