Judgment :- Krishnamoorthy, J. The State has filed this revision against the order of the Taluk Land Board by which it dropped the proceedings against the declarant by a majority. 2. The declarant in the case filed a statement before the Taluk Land Board under S.85A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act showing the total extent of the holding as 3651.43 acres of land. It was further claimed that out of the above land 3630.11 acres of land is private forest exempted under S.81 of the Act. Another extent of 9.15 acres was also claimed as exempted under S.81. The Taluk Land Board by order dated 14-3-1979 accepted the statement filed by the declarant after making due verification and held that the declarant is not holding any land above the ceiling area and accordingly dropped the proceedings. 3. Though a statement as mentioned above was filed before the Taluk Land Board, the declarant had actually filed a petition O.A. No. 484 of 1974 before the Forest Tribunal, Palghat claiming that 102 acres of land out of the 3600 and odd acres of private forest has not vested in the Government and praying for release of the same from the purview of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and assignment) Act. By order dated 2-5-1978 the Forest Tribunal held that 102 acres of land has not vested in the Government and released the above land. The State challenged the same in M.F.A. No. 401 of 1978. By judgment dated 14-7-1980 this Court modified the order of the Forest Tribunal and held that 92 acres out of the total extent will not vest in the Government under the Private Forests (Vesting and assignment) Act. This Court held that 75 acres of land is planted with teak wood, orange and soft wood even before the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1945 came into force, 2 acres was a cashew plantation and 15 acres the declarant was entitled to within his ceiling limit and accordingly came to the conclusion that 92 acres is liable to be exempted from the purview of the Vesting Act. 4. Thereafter, the Taluk Land Board got information of the above order and the Board proceeded to initiate proceedings under S.87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 4. Thereafter, the Taluk Land Board got information of the above order and the Board proceeded to initiate proceedings under S.87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. As no return was filed by the declarant, the Taluk Land Board obtained previous sanction of the State Land Board under S.87(2) read with S.85(7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and initiated proceedings by issuing a fresh draft statement to the declarant, dated 9-6-1982. In that draft statement it was stated that the 92 acres of alleged forest land exempted by this Court in M.F.A. 401 of 1978 has to be treated as land in the possession of the declarant and accordingly the declarant is liable to surrender 78.47 acres as excess land. The declarant filed an objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Taluk Land Board and also raised various other contentions. The majority of the members held that 92 acres of land which was exempted in M.F.A.401/78 is also a private forest coming within the purview of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and accordingly held that the declarant has no liability to surrender excess land. On the other hand, in the dissenting order the Chairman held that 92 acres is not a private forest coming within the purview of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and accordingly the declarant is liable to surrender 78.47 acres of land which is in excess of the ceiling area. But in the light of the majority decision the proceedings were dropped. It is this order of the Taluk Land Board that is challenged in this revision. 5. In the light of the facts of this ease it is not necessary to finally decide the question as to whether the view taken by the Chairman or the view taken by the majority of the members is the correct view. It is an admitted fact that the declarant had filed a statement under S.85A and that by order dated 14-3-1979 the proceedings were dropped, holding that the declarant is not liable to surrender any excess land. May be that the order was passed due to the mis-statement made by the declarant that the entire 3630.11 acres of land is a private forest liable to be exempted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. May be that the order was passed due to the mis-statement made by the declarant that the entire 3630.11 acres of land is a private forest liable to be exempted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. But, at any rate, that statement is proved to be wrong by the subsequent finding of this Court that 92 acres out of the private forest is already a planted area even before 1949. If that be so, the above land held by the declarant has also to be taken into account in fixing the accountable land as on 1-1-1970. S.87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act will apply only to cases where any person acquires any land after the date notified under S.83 by gift, purchase, mortgage with possession, lease, surrender or any other kind of transfer inter vivos or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise. As the declarant had possession and ownership in respect of the land in question even on 1-1-1970, the main part of S.87 cannot apply at all. So also, Explanations I and II to S.87 cannot also have any application, for if we go by the finding of this Court in the M.F.A. it is clear that even as on 1-1-1970 these lands were not liable to be exempted under any of the provisions contained in S.81 of the Act. Thus it is not a case where the lands were exempted as on 1-1-1970 but were later converted into any other type of lands which are not exempted under the Act. Thus the case on hand will not come within the provisions contained in S.87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 6. But the learned Government Pleader tried to support the case of reopening under S.85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. But we are afraid that even if the action is treated as one under S.85(9) it is without jurisdiction. Under S.85(9) power is given to the Taluk Land Board to set aside an order of the Taluk Land Board under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of S.85 if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. The first proviso also enjoins the Taluk Land Board that the person affected shall be given an opportunity to be heard before an order is set aside. The first proviso also enjoins the Taluk Land Board that the person affected shall be given an opportunity to be heard before an order is set aside. In this case the Taluk Land Board never set aside its earlier order dated 14-3-1979 not did it issue notice to the declarant before initiating proceedings under S.85(9). Under the second proviso to sub-sec. (9) of S.85, no proceedings under this sub-section shall be initiated after the expiry of three years from the date on which the earlier order of the Taluk Land Board became final. In this case the earlier order of the Taluk Land Board dropping the proceedings was passed on 14-3-1979 which was not challenged by anybody. The present proceedings were initiated only on 9-6-1982 by issuing a notice to the declarant, long after the period of three years from the date of the original order. Accordingly in any view of the matter, the present proceedings, even if we treat it as one under S.85(9), is without jurisdiction and cannot be supported as one made under S.85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 7. In view of what is stated above, though for different reasons, we have to confirm the order of the Taluk Land Board and we do so. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed, but, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.