Judgment :- 1. This revision petition is under S.103 of Act I of 1964, against an order passed by the Taluk Land Board in a proceeding initiated under S.85(7) of the Act. The Taluk Land Board found that the petitioner had no excess land as on 1-1-1970, as per the order passed on 30-11-1985. Subsequently, it was noticed that in 1980 the petitioner's two daughters Nabesa and Zainaba, had acquired certain properties on 3-10-1980. The share that devolved on both of these persons, Nabesa and Zainaba was included in the extent of the properties held by the petitioner on that date as a member of his family and the Taluk Land Board found that the petitioner had excess land of 0.521/2 acres and directed him to surrender that land. It is that order that is challenged in this revision. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that on the relevant date 3-10-1980 Zainaba was either a major or a married minor. The Taluk Land Board found that she was only an unmarried minor and included the extent of land belonging to her in the ceiling area of the petitioner. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether Zainaba was a major or a married minor on 3-10-1980. If she was a major or a married minor, she would not be a member of the petitioner's family in view of the definition of the expression 'family' in the Act which does not include a major or a married minor. The petitioner has not shown by any evidence that Zainaba was a major on 3-10-1980. On the other hand, there is a report of the Deputy Tahsildar dated 3-10-1986 that the school records show the date of birth of Zainaba as 2-5-1965. As there is no other evidence, this statement has to be accepted and the age of Zainaba has to be fixed as only 15 years on 3-10-1980. On that basis the Taluk Land Board was right in holding that she was a minor on that date. The second question to be considered is whether she was married on 3-10-1980. The petitioner relies on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar dated 26-12-1987 in which he has stated that Zainaba was married as on the date of the execution of the document on 3-10-1980. The second question to be considered is whether she was married on 3-10-1980. The petitioner relies on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar dated 26-12-1987 in which he has stated that Zainaba was married as on the date of the execution of the document on 3-10-1980. He, therefore, contends that this report made after an enquiry as contemplated under S.105 of the Act is conclusive proof that she was not married on 3-10-1980 and he relies on a decision of this Court in Abbas v. Taluk Land Board (1987 (2) K.L.T. 533) for the purpose. It is, therefore, contended that this report should have been accepted by the Taluk Land Board and it should have come to the conclusion that Zainaba was a married minor on 3-10-1980 in which case her share of the properties taken assignment by her and others should have been excluded from the ceiling area of the petitioner. 3. The file produced before me shows that on 30-10-1986 the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Land Reforms) Badagara reported that Zainaba was 19years as on 3-10-1980 and was also married and therefore there was no scope for proceeding under S.87 of the Act. This report did not show the basis or give any reasons for his conclusion about the age of Zainaba or about her status as a married woman. He was asked to make fresh enquiries and there is subsequent report by him on 30-12-1986, in which he stated that the school record shows that the date of birth of Zainaba as 2-5-1965. He also stated that his earlier report regarding the age was based on the recitals in the assignment deed. From this, it is clear that the first report was made without any enquiry, without any basis and that he was prepared to correct the mistake committed by him in his subsequent report dated 30-12-1986. When he examined the school records, he rightly found that the age was shown therein as 2-5-1965. Later when objections were raised by the petitioner before the Taluk Land Board and the objections were forwarded to the Deputy Tahsildar for his remarks, he conducted an enquiry, and it is in that enquiry report dated 26-12-1987 that he said that Zainaba was married on 3-1.0-1980. Later when objections were raised by the petitioner before the Taluk Land Board and the objections were forwarded to the Deputy Tahsildar for his remarks, he conducted an enquiry, and it is in that enquiry report dated 26-12-1987 that he said that Zainaba was married on 3-1.0-1980. Thus the contention is advanced that this report dated 26-12-1987 as a report made after enquiry under S.105 is final and binding on the parties and thus there cannot be a further enquiry before the Land Board especially when that has not been challenged and thus it should have been held that Zainaba was married on 3-10-1980. The counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Abbas v. Taluk Land Board (1987 (2) K.L.T. 533), for this purpose. 4. The learned judge in the said decision has held that a detailed enquiry is contemplated under S.105 of the Act by the authorised officer before he files the report. It was also held that this report is admissible in evidence without any proof. However, the learned judge administers a caution by stating thus: "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 Sub-section 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. 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". It is, therefore, clear that the Taluk Land Board has got jurisdiction to reject the report. True, the learned judge has held that the authorised officer can be cross-examined by invoking the jurisdiction under sub-section (3) of S.105(A) and in the absence of any such examination, the report submitted by the authorised officer requires to be accepted. There can be no quarrel with this proposition. 5. This decision in Abbas v. Taluk Land Board (1987 (2) K.L.T. 533), does not, as I understand, enumerate all the circumstances and conditions under which the report of the authorised officer can be rejected by the Taluk Land Board. If the authorised officer commits a patent error, an error apparent on the face of the record, Land Board will be acting within its jurisdiction if it rejects or accepts only in part the report of the authorised officer. This is because the inspection, and report of the authorised officer are statutory aids available to the Land Board for passing an order in the ceiling case. The "order" of the authorised officer under S.105(3) is not a substitute for the order of the Land Board and the Land Board has to apply its mind whether the report and order of the authorised officer should be accepted or not. It is in this processual jurisdiction that the admissibility in evidence of the report of the officer arises and when there is a patent error, as in this case, in the report of the authorised officer, the Land Board is not bound to incorporate the mistake in its order also; but has the power and the duty, implicit in its jurisdictional exercise, not to carry the mistake in the order of the Land Board. In the present case, the authorised officer, after referring to the evidence before him about the date of marriage as 16-4-1981, and accepting that evidence, omitted the word "not" in his report, when he stated that Zainaba was an unmarried minor on 30-10-1980, when he should have stated that Zainaba was not a married minor on 30-10-1980. 6. When the Deputy Tahsildar conducted the enquiry regarding the marital status of Zainaba, he obtained a statement from the petitioner himself which is seen at page 35 of the file in which he admits that Zainaba was married on 16th April, 1981. 6. When the Deputy Tahsildar conducted the enquiry regarding the marital status of Zainaba, he obtained a statement from the petitioner himself which is seen at page 35 of the file in which he admits that Zainaba was married on 16th April, 1981. One Hameed who attended the marriage also gives a statement in writing before the Deputy Tahsildar stating that the marriage took place on 16th April, 1981. This statement is seen at page 33 of the files. Based on this evidence, in his report the Deputy Tahsildar in Para.1 stated thus: "Smt.Zaina was minor as on the date of purchase of the land and she was married only on 16-4-1981 as shown in the statements submitted herewith. Therefore action under S.87 of the K.L.R. Act is initiated". The only evidence before the Deputy Tahsildar was the statement of the petitioner himself and of the person who attended the marriage of Zainaba, when Zainaba was married on 16-4-1981. In the circumstances, the Deputy Tahsildar went wrong in saying that she had a marital status on 3-10-1980. In such circumstances, the Taluk Land Board was right in rejecting the report and coming to the conclusion on the uncontroverted materials available that Zainaba was an unmarried minor on 3-10-1980. If she was an unmarried minor, her assets were rightly included in the ceiling area of the petitioner as she was a member of the petitioner's family. The Taluk Land Board was therefore, right in passing the order taking action under S.85(7) of the Act, against the petitioner. The order of the Taluk Land Board requires no interference under S.103 of the Act. The C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs.