Judgment :- 1. The order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady on 17-12-1986 in TLB.839/73(M) is being challenged by the State. As per the impugned order, the Taluk Land Board held that the 1st respondent herein is not liable to surrender any excess land. According to the revision petitioner, the order passed by the Taluk Land Board is not sustainable. 2. Brief facts leading to the order dated 17-12-1986 are necessary to understand the scope of the present order. The declarant originally filed a statement under S.85(2) and the Taluk Land Board registered the case as TLB NO.68/73/NW and passed final order on 27-8-1974 holding that the declarant was not liable to surrender any excess land. It appears that the declarant filed statement under S.85A and pursuant to that statement a fresh draft statement was prepared against the 1st respondent and was issued to him on 19-1-1976. The 1st respondent filed objection and contended that as already an order has been passed by the Taluk Land Board on 27-8-1974, therefore, no fresh proceedings could be taken pursuant to the statement under S.85A unless the earlier order is set aside. The Taluk Land Board, on the basis of the draft statement, proceeded to redetermine the excess land and passed an order under S.85(5) of the Act. That order is being challenged by the State. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order passed by the Taluk Land Board was without jurisdiction and the order of the Land Board dated 27-8-1974 shall prevail. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that the 1st respondent filed a fresh statement before the Land Board under S.85 A and the same was forwarded to the Taluk Land Board and the Taluk Land Board was justified in passing the second order under S.85(5) of the Act. 3. On going through the various relevant provisions in the Land Reforms Act, it appears that the Taluk Land Board has no jurisdiction to pass a second order since there was already an order passed by the same Taluk Land Board in respect of the same matter. The 1st respondent filed a fresh statement under S.85 A when a statement filed by him under S.85(2) was under the consideration of the Taluk Land Board. S.85 Awas inserted by S.17 of Act 17 of 1972. The 1st respondent filed a fresh statement under S.85 A when a statement filed by him under S.85(2) was under the consideration of the Taluk Land Board. S.85 Awas inserted by S.17 of Act 17 of 1972. As per S.85(2), any person owns or holds land in excess of the ceiling area was bound to file a statement within a period of three months from 1-1-1979. The extent of ceiling area has been stated under S.82 of the Act. Several persons failed to file statement under S.85(2) since in their estimation they were not holding land in excess of the ceiling area. However, under S.85A "notwithstanding anything contained in the various provisions in Chap.3, every family consisting of more than one member, owning or holding more than twelve acres in extent of land, every adult unmarried person and every family consisting of a sole surviving member, owning or holding more than six acres in extent of lands and every other person (other than a bank) owning or holding more than twelve acres in extent of land shall, within a period of seventy five days from the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 to file a statement". Sub-section (3) of S.85 A further states that on receipt of a statement under sub-section (1) of S.85A the Land Board shall transfer the statement to such Taluk Land Board as may be decided by the Land Board in accordance with such principles as may be prescribed. It is not specifically mentioned in S.85A as to what are the steps taken by the Taluk Land Board pursuant to S.85A. Going by the various provisions contained in S.85, the Taluk Land Board can then proceed only under S.85(7) of the Act. It reads as follows: "Where any person fails to file the statement specified under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3A) the Land Board shall, intimate that fact to the Taluk Land Board and thereupon the Taluk Land Board shall after necessary enquiries, by order, determine the extent and other particulars of the land, the ownership or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered: Provided that before such determination the Taluk Land Board shall give an opportunity to the persons interested in the land, to be heard". If a statement filed under S.85A is transferred by the Land Board to the concerned Taluk Land Board, that can be taken as an intimation and proceedings can be initiated under S.85(7). The learned Government Pleader contended that proceedings can be initiated even under S.85(5) of the Act in pursuant to a statement filed under S.85 A of the Act. An order under S.85(5) of the Act can be passed only if the proceedings are initiated pursuant to a statement filed under S.85 (2) or 85 (3A) of the Act. It is not specifically mentioned as to whether the Taluk Land Board has got jurisdiction to pass an order under S.85(5) pursuant to a statement under S.85A. Statements of the declarant under S.85(2) and 85(3A) alone are mentioned in S.85(5). 4. Therefore, the impugned order should be construed as an order passed under S.85(7) of the Act. Admittedly, the Taluk Land Board has passed an earlier order on 27-8-1974. That order was not challenged by the revision petitioner. That order has become final. Therefore, the Taluk Land Board was not justified in invoking S.85(7) of the Act, as there was already an order passed by the Board. If a subsequent order is to be passed by the same Taluk Land Board in respect of the same subject matter, the earlier order should have been set aside under S.85(9) of the Act. No such steps have been taken by the Taluk Land Board. Therefore, the impugned order itself is passed without jurisdiction and it can only be assumed that no rights or liabilities would flow from such an order. Therefore, the C.R.P. is without merit and the same is dismissed. This order is being passed without prejudice to the powers of the Land Board to pass any fresh order after cancelling its earlier order if it is permissible under law.