Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a claimant within the meaning of S.85(8) K.L.R. Act. 2. While disposing of C.C. No. 365/73, the Taluk Land Board, Mannarghat directed the declarant to surrender 2.92 acres of land. The land thus directed to be surrendered happened to be in the possession of one C.P. Ummer Haji, who claimed to be the tenant of the holding. He therefore filed a petition under S.85(8) before the Board and contended that the order directing the declarant to surrender the land is liable to be set aside. That petition was dismissed. Ummer Haji challenged that order by filing C.R.P. 620/82. This court by order dated 29th June, 1987, dismissed the revision. The order reads:- "The revision is one challenging the order of the Land Board by which it directed the revision petitioner to surrender 2.92 acres of land. This was on the basis that the land covered by the sale deed in 1966, could not be excluded on the ground that he had an earlier tenancy claim over the property. The document, available at page 107, in the file is dated 23-4-1966. The recitals therein, totally disable the revision petitioner from putting forward a claim of tenancy prior to 1-4-1964, a protected one. The Land Board was, therefore, correct in taking the view that no valid claim of tenancy could be found on the basis of the document and recitals therein. 2. Counsel endeavoured to salvage the property for his client, not only by placing the previous views taken by the Land Board but also by putting an interpretation on the agreement, which would enable him to make out a case of tenancy even from 1963. I have gone through the files produced before this Court. I am in agreement with the view taken by the Land Board that he could not make out a tenancy prior to 1-4-1964. In the light of the clear and specific recitals of the document, the revision petitioner has landed himself in a very difficult situation and all vehement arguments of counsel could not possibly help him in getting any relief in this matter. The revision fails and it is accordingly dismissed. In the light of the clear and specific recitals of the document, the revision petitioner has landed himself in a very difficult situation and all vehement arguments of counsel could not possibly help him in getting any relief in this matter. The revision fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs." It can be seen from observations in the above excerpt that this court has found that Ummer Haji has not been successful in establishing the tenancy set up by him, in respect of the land measuring 2.92 acres in extent and directed to be surrendered by the order in the ceiling case. The order of the Taluk Land Board directing surrender of the said land thus had become final. 3. Ummer Haji nonetheless moved the Taluk Land Board again for an order directing "the assessee to surrender other land in his possession". This application virtually is one falling under S.85(6). The Taluk Land Board allowed the application and consequently directed surrender of the disputed land. The petitioner herein purchased this land from one Rajani, the legatee under the will executed by the declarant. Rajani had challenged the aforesaid order before this court as is seen from C.R.P. 560 of 1988. This court dismissed the revision petition. Relevant portions of the order reads:- "The fourth respondent herein (Ummer Haji) has filed an application to reopen the order dated 21-1-1982 (the order which was affirmed by this court by the order in C.R.P. 620/82) and change the option. Notice was issued to the revision petitioner and after hearing, the application was allowed. Since the original option has been accepted subject to the provisos under sub-section (6), the order of the Taluk Land Board does not suffer from any illegality ". 4. The learned Government Pleader relying on the above order in C.R.P. 560/88 argued that the petitioner who got assignment of the rights of Rajani, shall not be heard to say that the order directing surrender of the land in his possession is bad in law. The inference possible from this argument is that a defeated applicant, under S.85(8) has the right to exercise an option in respect of the land, the assessee (statement given under S.8S(1) is directed to surrender as excess land. The inference possible from this argument is that a defeated applicant, under S.85(8) has the right to exercise an option in respect of the land, the assessee (statement given under S.8S(1) is directed to surrender as excess land. If one defeated claimant, is entitled to exercise the option, the Counsel for the petitions argues, then the petitioner, who is also defeated claimant, is equally entitled to exercise an option and request the Board to refrain from taking possession of the land in his possession in enforcement of the order directing the declarant to surrender the excess land. To resolve the dispute arising out of the above competing arguments, it is necessary to consider and dispose of the question stated hereunder. 5. Has an applicant under S.85(8) any right to exercise the option within the meaning of S.85(6). A reference in this connection to sub-sections 2 and 3A of S.85 is relevant. Sub-section 2 says (leaving out unnecessary parts) that, where a person owns or holds land in excess of the ceiling area such person shall within the prescribed period file a statement before the Land Board indicating the lands proposed to be surrendered. To the same effect is the provisions contained in sub-section 3A. A question would immediately arise and it is this: who is the person who is bound to file a statement indicating the lands, he proposes to surrender as excess land? That person is the one (as defined under sub-section (1) of S.85) who holds land in excess of the ceiling area on the date notified under S.83. The Taluk Land Board considering the statement filed by the statement given is bound to issue appropriate directions in regard to the excess land, the statement giver is bound to surrender. If such an order in any way interfere with the rights of persons who are claimants within the meaning of sub-section 8 of S.85, then, such persons have the right to have such orders directing surrender of the excess land reopened; and the order will be reopened provided sufficient reason is shown. If such an order in any way interfere with the rights of persons who are claimants within the meaning of sub-section 8 of S.85, then, such persons have the right to have such orders directing surrender of the excess land reopened; and the order will be reopened provided sufficient reason is shown. The right of the interested person made mention of in sub-section 8 of S.85 is a very limited right in that, he can establish that the land in his possession is not liable to be included in the account of the declarant because he had become the owner in possession of the land prior to the specified date under S.84. It therefore follows that there is no need for a claimant to exercise any option in regard to the land the declarant is directed to surrender as excess land. Now the only question that remains to be considered is; has a defeated claimant any right to exercise option within the meaning of sub-section 6 of S.85. The answer is 'No'; because the right of option recognised under sub-section 6 of S.85 can be exercised only by a declarant. No such right is vested in a claimant leave alone a defeated claimant. If that be so Ummer Haji who admittedly is a defeated claimant, cannot be said to have the right to exercise option under S.85(6). The order allowing the application of Ummer Haji under S.85(6) has resulted in the issuance of the order under challenge. This order, the petitioner can, in any event,collaterally attack as it is capable of interfering with his property rights. 6. The irresistible inference that can be had from the facts stated above is that the improper application of the provisions of S.85(6) by the Taluk Land Board has resulted in the violation of the equal protection clause in Art.14 of the Constitution, intended to secure every person within the State against arbitrary discrimination. The petitioner therefore could avail of this equal protection clause against the Taluk Land Board. It should in this connection be remembered that even if it is found that the authority has acted bonafide and the discriminitation was the result of a mere error of judgment on his part, the action shall fail. This is a well established principle of law. The injustice thus done to the petitioner can be put right only by the intervention of 'equity'. This is a well established principle of law. The injustice thus done to the petitioner can be put right only by the intervention of 'equity'. To remedy the injustice done to the petitioner by the order under challenge which admittedly is one passed consequent on the cancellation of the order passed under S.85(6) in favour of the defeated claimant, I am of the view, the equitable relief of a declaration that the order under challenge shall not be enforced against the petitioner so long as the order directing Ummer Haji to surrender land made mention of therein is not enforced against him (Ummer Haji). The authority concerned therefore is directed to act accordingly. However it is made clear that this order will not preclude the Taluk Land Board from initiating appropriate proceedings to take possession of the excess land from the lands, the Taluk Land Board has permitted the declarant to retain pursuant to the order disposing of his ceiling case. Since the petitioner is found entitled to retain possession of the land in dispute, it has become necessary to issue the following directions:- i. The land which has already been taken possession of by the authority concerned, shall be restored to the petitioner within four weeks from today. ii. The value of the usufructus directed to be kept in a separate account as per the directions contained in the order dated 15-6-1989 passed in C.M.P. 14660 of 1989 shall be paid to the petitioner, again within four weeks from today. The C.R.P. is allowed. No Costs.