Judgment :- S. Sankarasubban, J. The above Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the orders of the Taluk Land Board, which rejected the claim of the petitioners under the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1998 (Act 5 of 1998) thereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioners are persons who got possession of properties on account of assignment or tenancy. But the proceedings taken under the Kerala Land Reforms Act for the determination of the ceiling area ignored these assignments or transfers and they were included as the land of the declarant. Further the lands have already been surrendered to the Government. Pursuant to the surrender, according to the Government Pleader, the list had been prepared for distributing the land to the landless as per the Kerala Land Reforms Act. When the above said Act came into force, the petitioners made an application that the land surrendered should not be distributed till the period of the above Act is over. The Land Board after considering the matter held that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits of the above said Act. The Preamble of the Act stated as follows: "WHEREAS numerous proceedings are pending before the Land Tribunals, the Taluk Land Boards, the State Land Board, the Courts or the Revenue Authorities or other authorities wherein small holders and cultivating tenants who purchased or otherwise acquired land for consideration, evidenced by registered documents or otherwise, are under threat of eviction or dispossession; AND WHEREAS there are persistent demands from the general public and organisations to protect such small holder and cultivating tenants, who are purchasers of such land, from eviction or dispossession of such land; AND WHEREAS the Government consider it necessary, in the public interest, to provide for temporary protection of such small holders and cultivating tenants, who are purchasers of such land, from eviction or dispossession pending enactment of a legislation protecting their rights and interests on such land". Thus, the Act has been passed with a view to protect small holders and cultivating tenants who are bonafide purchasers of land and who are under the threat of eviction. S.3, which is the operative portion of the Act, stated as follows: "3. Thus, the Act has been passed with a view to protect small holders and cultivating tenants who are bonafide purchasers of land and who are under the threat of eviction. S.3, which is the operative portion of the Act, stated as follows: "3. Stay of eviction proceedings: - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963(1 of 1964), or any other law fertile time being in force or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or proceedings of the Land Tribunal, the Taluk Land Board, the State Land Board or any other authority, during the period of operation of this Act, (a) no cultivating tenant or small holder who holds or possess any land, purchased by him for consideration, evidenced by registered document or otherwise, and which is subsequently found as excess land to be surrendered under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964), shall be evicted from, or disposed of, such land; and (b) all proceedings for such eviction or dispossession pending before any Court, Tribunal, Board or other authority referred to above, shall stand stayed". Thus, to get the benefit of this Act, it is necessary that such person should be in possession of the land. The benefit is lost in cases where the persons are not, in possession. It is in that way the Taluk Land Board considered the matter and rejected the petitions. But the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that it is only by an accident that certain persons are dispossessed much earlier and certain persons are still continuing in possession. According to them the ceiling proceedings will be completed only when the lands are distributed. Now so long as, the lands are not distributed and they are in the possession of the Government, the benefit of the Act should be extended to the petitioners. Further it was argued that under S.86 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, immediately on the determination of the extent of the land, ownership or possession of the land vested in the Government free from all encumbrance. Hence, the counsel stated that the question of delivery of possession of land is immaterial if the lands' ownership or possession vested with the Government. It is true that under S.86 there is a vesting of ownership or possession of excess land in the Government. Hence, the counsel stated that the question of delivery of possession of land is immaterial if the lands' ownership or possession vested with the Government. It is true that under S.86 there is a vesting of ownership or possession of excess land in the Government. But S.86(2) says that on receipt of the order of the Taluk Land Board, the person in possession has to surrender the land. In the present proceedings, I am only called upon to find out whether the order passed by the Taluk Land Board is correct or not. 2. The petitioners have no case that they are in possession of the land. The land has already been surrendered. Hence I agree with the Taluk Land Board that they are not entitled to the benefit of the Act. The petitioners then contended that indiscriminately they are excluded from the provisions of the Act. I do not think, I can go into the question in a proceedings under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. If the petitioners have got a case that the Act is discriminatory, they have to file appropriate petitions. The C.R.P. are dismissed.