Judgment :- Pareed Pillay, CJ. Appellants challenge the judgment in O.P. 7438 of 1994. The learned judge allowed the Original Petition and quashed Exts. P8 and P9 notices issued by the Taluk, Land-Board, Thiruvananthapuram holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same. 2. The-question that arises for consideration is whether the Taluk Land Board has the power to review the decision taken by the State Land Board. Ext. P-5 is the order of the State Land Board dated 15-2-1972 determining the extent of the land the respondents have to surrender. It is many years thereafter that Exts. P-8 and P-9 notices were issued by the Taluk Land Board. That has been done by invoking the power under S.85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 3. Contention of the appellants is that the learned judge erred in holding that the Taluk Land Board has no power to initiate proceedings under S.85(9A) in respect of an order passed by the State Land Board: It is contended that the powers under S.85 of the Act originally exercised by the State Land Board were delegated to the Taluk Land Board consequent to the constitution of the Taluk Land Board and so the function originally exercised by the State Land Board under S.85 can very well be exercised by the Taluk Land Board in continuation of the proceedings by virtue of delegation of powers. 4. S.85(9A) enables the Taluk Land Board to re view its decision. A reading of sub-section (9A) makes the position clear that the power of review is given only to the Taluk Land Board. When the sub-section does not admit of any ambiguity, it is indeed difficult to accept the contention that the powers conferred under the sub-section can be used to review the decision taken by the State Land Board. 5. In this context it is useful to refer to the First Explanation to S.85(9). S.85(9) reads: "85(9). When the sub-section does not admit of any ambiguity, it is indeed difficult to accept the contention that the powers conferred under the sub-section can be used to review the decision taken by the State Land Board. 5. In this context it is useful to refer to the First Explanation to S.85(9). S.85(9) reads: "85(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. Provided that the Taluk Land B card shall not set aside any order under this sub-section without giving the persons affected thereby an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that the Taluk Land Board shall not initiate any proceedings under this sub-section after the expiry of seven days from the date on which the order sought to be set aside has become final. Explanation I.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the references in this sub-section to the Taluk Land Board shall, in cases in which the order under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) has been passed by the Land Board, be construed as references to the Land Board". Explanation I clarifies that the reference in the sub-section to the Taluk Land Board shall, in cases in which the order under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) has been passed by the Land Board, be construed as a reference to the Land Board. But from the explanation it cannot be construed that decision taken by State Land Board can be reviewed by the Taluk Land Board under S.85(9A). But from the explanation it cannot be construed that decision taken by State Land Board can be reviewed by the Taluk Land Board under S.85(9A). When sub-section (9A) confines the power of review to Taluk Land Board alone and as there is nothing in the Act to indicate even remotely that this power can be exercised by the Taluk Land Board to review a decision taken by the State Land Board it is futile to contend that under S.85(9A) it would be open to the Taluk Land Board to review a decision taken by the State Land Board. 6. As Ext. P-5 order of the State Land Board has become final, it cannot be reopened or reviewed by the Taluk Land Board by invoking S.85(9A). As the order has not been passed by the Taluk Land Board, no question of reviewing or reopening the same by it arises. As no power to reopen or review under sub-section (9A) has been conferred on the Land Board, the resultant position is that Ext. P-5 order has become final. 7. Explanation I to sub-section (9) cannot be read into sub-section (9A). This Explanation has no reference to sub-section (9A) which was introduced into the statute much later. Thus, the indubitable position is that the power under S.85(9A) can only be exercised by the Taluk Land Board to review its decision and that it cannot be used to review the decision taken by the State Land Board. That being the position, the impugned judgment cannot be assailed. There is no merit in the Writ Appeal. Writ Appeal is dismissed.