Judgment :- 1. Petitioners filed application before the Taluk Land Board, Palghat to set aside its order dated 17-12-1975 and re-open the matter. The Taluk Land Board rejected the application on the ground that the petitioners were minors as on 1-1-1970 and as they were included in the statutory family of the declarant while determining the ceiling area under S.85(A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act the decision already taken is binding on them also. 2. Contention of the petitioners is that it was incumbent upon the Taluk Land Board to issue notice to all parties and as separate notice was not issued to their guardian it amounted to a virtual denial of hearing of their case and so the case requires re-hearing. 3. S.2 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act defines 'family'. 'Family' means husband, wife and their unmarried minor children or such of them as exists. R.12 of the Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 provides for the service of draft statement on persons interested in the property. In a case where draft statement relates to an adult unmarried person, the draft statement prepared under R.10 together with a notice in Form No.3 inviting objections to the draft statement shall be served on him. Where such a person is a lunatic, idiot or a person subject to any like disability, the draft statement shall be served on the guardian, manager or other person in charge of such person or of the property of such person. R.12(1)(ii) provides that where the draft statement relates to a family, the notice and the draft statement shall be served on the husband and wife or such of them as exists or where the family consists of only minors, the notice and draft statement shall be served on their guardian, manager or other person in charge of such minors or their property. Thus it can be seen that in a case where the family consists of only minors notice has to be served on their guardian, manager or other person in charge of such minor or their property. In a case where the family consists of husband, wife and minor children, separate notice to the guardian or manager representing the minors is not contemplated. In a case where the family consists of husband, wife and minor children, separate notice to the guardian or manager representing the minors is not contemplated. Thus it is evident from the Rule that in a case where the family consists only of minors, for example, in a case where their parents are not alive notice as provided under R.12(1)(ii) has to be given to the guardian or manager or other person in charge of such minors or their property. If the parents are alive, notice to them will be sufficient. 4. R.12(2) which envisages that the draft statement together with the notice referred to in sub-rule (1) shall also be served on all other persons, so far as may be known, who have or are likely to have any claim to, or interest in the ownership or possession or both of the lands indicated in such draft statement as lands to be surrendered, cannot have any application to a case where notice has to be given to a family consisting of minor. children alone. R.12(2) cannot be construed to nullify the effect and importance of R.12(1)(ii). R.12(2) has been enacted to issue notice to persons who have some interest in the property apart from the declarant and his family. This is intended to cover persons in possession of the property as a lessee, mortgagee or in any other capacity. The wholesome principle underlying this rule is to give an effective hearing to any person interested in the land, however remote be the interest. The purpose of R.12(2) is to give notice to all persons interested in the properties dealt with in the ceiling case by the Taluk Land Board. As R.12 (1)(ii) stipulates that notice has to be given to the guardian, manager or other person in charge of the minors or of their property in a case where the family consists only of minors, it is not possible to hold that in a case where the family consists of minors, major children and their parents separate notice will have to be issued to the guardian, manager or other person in charge of the minors or their property. 5. In the present case, the family consists of the father, mother and minor children as on 1-1-1970. 5. In the present case, the family consists of the father, mother and minor children as on 1-1-1970. As it is not a case where the family consists only of minors, contention that separate notice should have been issued to the guardian of the minors is not tenable. As the family defined under the Act means the husband, wife and their unmarried minor children, notice to the parents of the minors is really legally sufficient. 6. S.85(2A) makes the position further clear. In the case of an adult unmarried person statement showing location, extent and such other particulars of the lands owned or held by him and indicating the lands proposed to be surrendered must be disclosed by him. In the case of a minor, lunatic, idiot or a person subject to like disability, the guardian, manager or other person in charge of such person or of the property of such person has to file the statement. In the case of a family, the husband or in his absence the wife, or, in the absence of both, the guardian of the minor children has to file the statement S.85(2A) makes the position abundantly clear that the statement under sub-section (2) has to be filed, in the case of a family by the husband or in his absence, the wife or in the absence of both, the guardian of the minor children. R.12(1)(ii) of the Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules elucidates the position so far as sending the draft statement together with notice where the family consists of only minors. 7. Counsel for the petitioners relied on Krishna Kumar v. Taluk Land Board (1981 KLT. 594) and urged that the fact that the father of the minors, who are members of the statutory family, is liable to give a declaration does not mean that the minors cannot be heard in the ceiling case either during their minority or after they attain majority. In the above case, the petitioners who attained majority subsequent to 1-1-1970 filed petition before Taluk Land Board to get themselves impleaded with a view to get an opportunity to urge their contentions. That request was not allowed by the Land Board and in that context Bhat J. held that such a request should not be denied under any of the provisions of the Act. That request was not allowed by the Land Board and in that context Bhat J. held that such a request should not be denied under any of the provisions of the Act. The above ruling is not of any assistance to the petitioners especially when they have no case that their mother and father who were served with draft statement and notice acted adverse to their interests and to vindicate their stand that they want re-hearing of the matter. As R.12(1)(ii) envisages notice to the guardian of the minors in a case where the family consists of minors only and as it is specific and does not admit of any vagueness or ambiguity, the failure to issue separate notice to the guardian of the minors cannot by itself be taken as ground for re-hearing the case which has already been disposed of by the Taluk Land Board. This is particularly so in view of the lack of any allegations that their parents did not advance the case of the minors properly and effectively or that they acted prejudicially or detrimentally to the interest of the minors. 8. The Taluk Land Board was justified in holding that the decision already taken by order dated 17-12-1975 is binding on the petitioners also as they are included in the statutory family of the declarant. As that decision is binding on the petitioners, they cannot raise any valid ground to re-open the matter afresh. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Taluk Land Board. The Civil Revision Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.