Judgment :- The two petitioners are mother and son, being the wife and son of one P.V. Kuruvilla, who was the declarant in ceiling case S.R.No.101/73 of the Taluk Land Board, Kothamangalam, the 2nd respondent. He had filed statement of his holdings, as required by S.85 (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 (the Act). The matter was enquired into by the Taluk Land Boarti, who, by the order dated November 11,1975, held that Curuvilla did not own or hold any land in excess of the ceiling area prescribed in the Act. The ceiling case was accordingly closed. 2. The proceedings were later reopened under S.85(9) of the Act, pursuant o notice dated September 1, 1978, on the apprehension that Kuruvilla really owned or icldlandin excess of the prescribed ceiling limits. The order dated November 11,1975 vas set aside. A draft statement dated April 1,1980, containing proposals for determination of the surrender able area was served on the first petitioner, one of the legal heirs of Curuvilla, who was meanwhile dead on January 21,1980. The law as it stood then, did not enable continuance of the proceedings against the legal heirs of the deceased declarant, such a provision namely sub-section (6A) of S.85 having been introduced in the Act for the first time only by the amending Act 19 of 1981, though with retrospective effect from January 1,1970. The Taluk Land Board therefore, decided on July 15, 1980 not to minuet the proceedings, and to proceed afresh against the legal heirs of deceased Curuvilla under S.87. This provision enables initiation of proceedings, where any person acquires land after January 1,1970 by inheritance or otherwise and thereby the extent of and owned or held by him exceeds the ceiling limits. The Deputy Tahsildar was called upon to make report regarding the holdings of the legal heirs of the deceased, which he lid on August 30,1980. The proceedings under S.87 "continued" against the legal heirs of Kuruvilla, considering each of them as a separate entity. There was an elaborate discussion of the matter, and by the proceedings dated September 9,1980, the Taluk Land Board came to the conclusion that none of the legal heirs had any excess land. The proceedings were therefore, dropped once more. 3. This did not however put an end to the travails of the parties. There was an elaborate discussion of the matter, and by the proceedings dated September 9,1980, the Taluk Land Board came to the conclusion that none of the legal heirs had any excess land. The proceedings were therefore, dropped once more. 3. This did not however put an end to the travails of the parties. Sub-section [6A) was introduced into S.85 by Act 19 of 1981 permitting continuance of proceedings against the legal representatives of the deceased declarant. The Taluk Land Board hereupon reopened the proceedings again on June 15, 1982 and issued a fresh draft statement in the name of deceased Kuruvilla, and served the notice under R.12 (2) of the Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules on fcis legal heirs. They objected and the Taluk Land Board by its order Ext.P3 dated August 23,1982 once again came to the conclusion that Kuruvilla did not own or hold any excess land as on January 1,1970 and that therefore, le was not liable to surrender any land. The proceedings were accordingly dropped. Nevertheless and after all these repeated exercises and findings that neither Kuruvilla or his heirs owned or held any land in excess, the Taluk Land Board again issued notice Ext.P4 dated May 3,1985 purporting to reopen the ceiling case after setting aside the order Ext.P3 dated August 23,1982. The petitioner filed this original petition challenging the notice Ext.P4 with the plea that the proceedings are misconceived, without jurisdiction and time barred. 4. The facts stated above are culled, out from the counter affidavit of the respondents, and the exhibits in the case. There can therefore, be no dispute about them. Petitioners 'contention is that the proceedings purported to be initiated by notice Ext.P4 are invalid. They point out that by the second proviso to S.85 (9) the Board cannot set aside an order after the expiry of three years from the date on which it became final. The order liable to be reopened under S.85(9) is an original order of the Taluk Land Board, and not one passed pursuant to an earlier reopening under this very provision. In other words, the submission is that S.85(9) does not enable the Taluk Land Board to reopen an earlier order which itself is one passed under the very same section. 5. Before going into this question, it is necessary to examine the scheme of S.85, which deals with surrender of excess lands. In other words, the submission is that S.85(9) does not enable the Taluk Land Board to reopen an earlier order which itself is one passed under the very same section. 5. Before going into this question, it is necessary to examine the scheme of S.85, which deals with surrender of excess lands. Sub-section (1) of the section provides that a person owning or holding lands in excess of the ceiling area on the date notified under S.83 namely January 1, 1970 shall surrender the excess land in the manner provided in the section. Sub-section (2) requires a person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area to file a statement before the Land Board containing the particulars prescribed of all the lands owned or held by him on the specified date and indicating the lands proposed to be surrendered. Sub-section (2A) identifies the persons who are to file the statement under sub-section (2). Sub-sections (3) and (3A) make provision for cases where there has> been claim for resumption of land. Sub-section (5) lays down the procedure to be followed by the Land Board on receipt of the statement under subsections (2) or (3 A). The Land Board is directed to transfer the statement to a Taluk Land Board in accordance with the principles to be prescribed. The Taluk Land Board shall then verify the particulars mentioned in the statement, ascertain whether the person to whom the statement relates owns or holds any other lands and then, by order, determine the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered. The principles to be kept in mind in determining the identity of the land to be surrendered are laid down in sub-section (6). 6. Sub-section (6A) which as mentioned earlier was introduced by Act 19 of 1981 enables continuance of proceedings against the legal representatives of a deceased declarant. Sub-section (7) delineates the procedure to be followed, where there has been failure to file the statement under sub-section (2) or (3A), and the Taluk Land Board's power to determine the surrenderable area in such cases. Sub-section (8) enables a person who is affected by an order of the Taluk Land Board, but who had not been heard by it, to apply for setting aside the order and to have the matter heard afresh. Sub-section (8) enables a person who is affected by an order of the Taluk Land Board, but who had not been heard by it, to apply for setting aside the order and to have the matter heard afresh. Sub-section (9) with which we are now concerned is the one which provides for setting aside an order passed under sub-sections (5) and (7) as the case may be, and to proceed afresh under those sub-sections, if the Taluk Land Board is satisfied about the existence of one or other of the three contingencies referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c). The Taluk Land Board has however, to give an opportunity to the affected person to be heard. It shall not also initiate any proceedings under the sub-section after the expiry of three years from the date on which the order sought to be set aside became final. It will be advantageous to extract sub-sections (5), (7) and (9) for purposes of reference: - "(5) On receipt of the statement under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3A) 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 and such Taluk Land Board shall - (a) Cause the particulars mentioned in the statement to be verified; (b) Ascertain whether the person to whom the statement relates, owns or holds another lands; and (c) By order, determine the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered. (7) Where any person fails to file the statement specified under sub-section (2) or subsection (3A), the Land Board shall, intimate the 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. (9) The Taluk Land Board may, at any time, set aside its order under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7), as the case may be, and proceed afresh under that sub-section if it is satisfied that - (a) The extent of lands surrendered by or assumed from, a person under S.86 is less than the extent of lands which he was liable to surrender under the provisions of this Act, or (b) The lands surrendered by, or assumed from, a person are not lawfully owned or held by him; or (c) In a case where a person is, according to such order, not liable to surrender any land, such person owns or holds lands in excess of the ceiling area." It is in the light of these provisions that the validity of Ext.P4 has to be considered. 7. The orders under sub-sections (5) and (7) are the culmination of proceedings set in motion by the filing of a statement either suomotu under sub-sections (2) or (3 A), or by being called upon to do so under sub-section (7). On such a statement being filed, the normal gamut of proceedings follows in the manner prescribed by the Ceiling Rules, and the order determining the extent, identity and other particulars of the land to be surrendered is passed. What sub-section (9) permits is to set aside an order passed under sub-sections (5) or (7), that is an order which is the culmination of proceedings initiated by the filing of the statement under sub-sections (2), (3A) or (7). In my opinion, what sub-section (9) provides is to set aside such an order, if the Taluk Land Board is satisfied, about the existence of one or other of the conditions mentioned therein, and then to follow the procedure prescribed by these sub-sections, and re-determine the extent of land, if any, liable to be surrendered. An order thus passed is one made under sub-section (9) though the procedure prescribed for passing such an order is that contained in sub-sections (5) or (7), incorporating the various detail, mentioned. It is not in law an order passed under sub-sections (5) or (7) with the quality of its being the culmination of the proceedings initiated by a statement under sub-sections (2), (3A), or (7). It is the culmination of the proceedings initiated under sub-section (9) itself. It is not in law an order passed under sub-sections (5) or (7) with the quality of its being the culmination of the proceedings initiated by a statement under sub-sections (2), (3A), or (7). It is the culmination of the proceedings initiated under sub-section (9) itself. What can be set aside under sub-section (9) is only an original order of the nature mentioned, made in the first instance, and not an order which traces its authority to sub-section (9). 8. That S.85(9) connotes a class of orders different from those falling under sub-sections (5) or (7) is evident from the recent amendment by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 16 of 1989, which introduced sub-section (9A) to S.85. This new provision specifically categorizes orders under S.85(9) as distinct and separate from the other two provisions. The sub-section reads: - "(9A). Fewer of Taluk Land Board to review its decision.-Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963), or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, the Taluk Land Board may, if it is satisfied that its decision under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) or sub-section (9) requires to be reviewed on the ground that such decision has been made due to the failure to produce relevant data or other particulars relating to ownership or possession before it, or by collusion or fraud or any suppression of material facts the Taluk Land Board may review such decision after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard and pass such orders as it may think fit: Provided that the Taluk Land Board shall not reopen any such case after the expiry of three years from the date of coming into force of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1989". This supports my view that the orders liable to be reopened under sub-section (9) are original orders falling under sub-sections (5) or (7) and not orders which are themselves reopened orders under sub-section (9). 9. The learned Government Pleader Smt. Seemanthini placed reliance on the decisions of this court in Sahadevan v. Taluk Land Board, 1981 KLT 146, and Taluk Land Board v. Sreekrishnan, 1986 KLT 1120. lam however, unable to find any relevance for these decisions in the decision of the point in issue in this case. 9. The learned Government Pleader Smt. Seemanthini placed reliance on the decisions of this court in Sahadevan v. Taluk Land Board, 1981 KLT 146, and Taluk Land Board v. Sreekrishnan, 1986 KLT 1120. lam however, unable to find any relevance for these decisions in the decision of the point in issue in this case. Sahadevan's case dealt with the alleged finality of orders passed under sub-sections (5) and (7), under section 101 (4), and with the question whether sub-section (9) could be invoked in a case where no land had been ordered to be surrendered by the previous order. In Sreekrishnan's case, the point in dispute was as to the terminus aqua of the period of time limited by the amending Act 13 of 1978 for reopening an order under sub-sections (5) and (7). That case did not touch the point in issue before me. 10. I have therefore, no hesitation in overruling the contentions of the respondents, and in holding that the Taluk Land Board has acted without jurisdiction in issuing the notice Ext.P4 to reopen a reopened order of itself. 11. In this view of the matter the question as to whether the period of three years has to be computed from August 23,1982 or from November 11,1975 does not arise for consideration. 12. I must also observe that section 85(9) applies only if the Taluk Land Board is satisfied on the existence of one or other of the conditions, specified. Such satisfaction must be based on materials. So far as this case is concerned, it was repeatedly held by the Taluk Land Board that the declarant or his heirs did not own or hold lands in excess of the ceiling limits. It is too much to say that the Taluk Land Board was nevertheless satisfied that their earlier findings were all erroneous, and that the declarant was liable to surrender some land as excess. The satisfaction, which is the condition precedent for invoking S.85(9), cannot be stated to have been reached on any relevant materials. For that reason also, the issue of the notice Ext.P4 is lacking in jurisdiction. 13. This is one of those cases where the Taluk Land Board had repeatedly held in favour of the declarant that he is not liable to surrender any land. For that reason also, the issue of the notice Ext.P4 is lacking in jurisdiction. 13. This is one of those cases where the Taluk Land Board had repeatedly held in favour of the declarant that he is not liable to surrender any land. If at all there is any defect in the proceedings, and the declarant has escaped from surrendering an excess land, the fault lies in the Taluk Land Board, though on the facts, it does not appear to be correct. The Taluk Land Board is expected to be vigilant, and to render a correct decision on the various details mentioned in S.85(5) after due enquiry- and gathering of particulars. Errors are still likely, or there maybe concealments of land or transactions which come to light subsequently. S.85(9) takes care of such cases. There is no case of fraud or concealment of particulars in the instant case. So far as I could see from the counter affidavit, the case is one of alleged misapplication of the law. The Taluk Land Board had actually had four different occasions to correct itself, assuming that there was any mistaken application of the law. If still, the alleged mistake was not set right by a proper order, the Taluk Land Board has to take the consequences. The declarant cannot be exposed to repeated and periodical forays for determination of the very same question. S.85(9) is not an instrument of oppression to be invoked once in three years. A citizen is entitled to be protected in such cases. I allow the original petition and quash Ext.P4. No costs.