ORDER 1. By order dated 26-10-1976, the Taluk Land Board, Vikom directed the appellant to surrender 34.58 acres of land. This order was challenged by the appellant in revision before the High Court which was dismissed on 3-111978. The special leave petition filed by the appellant in this Court was also dismissed. 2. When the Tahsildar, pursuant to the order passed by the Taluk Land Board on 26-10-1976, proceeded to take possession over 34.58 acres of land, it was noticed by him that there was a deficiency of 2.32 acres of land. The matter was reported to the Taluk Land Board which ordered that land to the extent of 2.32 acres also be surrendered by the declarant (appellant). This order was challenged by the appellant before the High Court which disposed of the revision on 10-8-1981 observing, inter alia, as under: "4. Section 85(9) of the Act contemplates the Taluk Land Board setting aside a final order under the three circumstances specified therein and only after issuing a show-cause notice to the declarant or the assessee and after hearing him. After hearing him what the Taluk Land Board has to do first is only to decide if it is to set aside the final order passed earlier. It cannot straight away amend or modify the final order without proceeding afresh under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of Section 85. There cannot be a combined order in which the Taluk Land Board sets aside the earlier final order and also passes another final order or a modified final order. Such a proceeding is not contemplated by Section 85(9) of the Act. If the notice in this case was issued under Section 85(9) of the Act, it is clear that the Taluk Land Board has not proceeded in accordance with the requirements of Section 85(9) of the Act. Notice in this case was not issued under Section 85(9). There is no other provision of law warranting such a notice. Hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that liberty may be reserved with the Taluk Land Board to take fresh proceedings under Section 85(9) of the Act. It is made clear that it is open to the Taluk Land Board to initiate such proceedings if in law the Board is entitled to do so. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that liberty may be reserved with the Taluk Land Board to take fresh proceedings under Section 85(9) of the Act. It is made clear that it is open to the Taluk Land Board to initiate such proceedings if in law the Board is entitled to do so. The revision is accordingly allowed, but without costs." 3. The High Court thus decided the case in favour of the appellants. It, however, gave liberty to the Taluk Land Board to initiate such proceedings against the appellants as were permissible under law. 4. In pursuance of this order, the Taluk Land Board passed the following order on 3-11-1981: "In these office proceedings read as 1st paper above, orders were issued to surrender 19.27 acres in Survey No. 361/1ABC of Talayasham village as excess land to the Government from the declarant. The Tahsildar, Vikom who was authorised to take over the land has reported that only 16.95 acres of S.C. Nilam is available for taking over. In these office proceedings dated 27-11-1979, orders were issued to surrender 2.32 acres of other class of land from the same survey number. The High Court by its order 2nd cited set aside the orders of the Taluk Land Board and directed to proceed under Section 85(9) of the Act. Accordingly, notice under Section 85(9) of the Act was issued to the party directing him to appear before the Board on 20-10-1981 and to file objections, if any, in reopening the cause under Section 85(9) of the Act and proceeding afresh. Party appeared before the Board and stated that he has no objection in setting aside the order under Section 85(9) of the Act and proceeding afresh. The Board at its sitting on 3-11-1981 examined the case in detail and was satisfied that it is necessary to set aside the earlier order under Section 85(9) of the Act and proceed with the case afresh under Section 85(5) of the Act in view of the High Court order dated 10-8-1981. The Board orders accordingly. Fresh draft statement under Rule I with notice under Rule 12(1) of the Ceiling Rules will be issued to the declarant separately. Given under the hand and seal of the Taluk Land Board, Vikom dated this the 3rd day of November, 1981. -sd/Chairman, Taluk Land Board, Vikom" 5. The Board orders accordingly. Fresh draft statement under Rule I with notice under Rule 12(1) of the Ceiling Rules will be issued to the declarant separately. Given under the hand and seal of the Taluk Land Board, Vikom dated this the 3rd day of November, 1981. -sd/Chairman, Taluk Land Board, Vikom" 5. This order was followed by a fresh notice issued to the appellants under Rule 12(1) of the Rules made under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The appellants consequently filed a fresh statement. The whole matter was considered again and an exemption in respect of the land on which there were rubber plantations was granted in favour of the appellants with the result that the area of land which was to be surrendered was reduced to 9.66 acres against 34.58 acres determined earlier. It was this order which was challenged by the State by filing a revision in the High Court which was allowed with the following observations: "6. In the circumstances, I set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board and direct the Taluk Land Board to proceed in accordance with the notice issued under Section 85(9) in regard to 2.32 acres of land which is found to be deficient in Survey No. 36111ABC in the light of this judgment and also in the light of judgment in CRP No. 85 of 1980. It is made clear that the Taluk Land Board has no jurisdiction to reopen the case which has become final by the previous orders. The matter is remanded to the Taluk Land Board to the limited extent of considering the question of surrender of land in Survey No. 36111ABC." 6.It is this order which is under challenge in this appeal. 7. Since the order passed by the High Court on 10-8-1981 provided, inter alia, that the Taluk Land Board was at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, it was not open to the respondent to contend before the High Court that the reopening was bad. In fact, the order passed by the High Court on 10-8-1981 had attained finality between the parties as it was not challenged in this Court. In fact, the order passed by the High Court on 10-8-1981 had attained finality between the parties as it was not challenged in this Court. After the Taluk Land Board, in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, issued fresh notice and re determined the area of land to be surrendered by the appellant, the State could not legally object to the reopening of the whole matter particularly as the reopening order was passed by the High Court at the instance of the Government Pleader. 8. The High Court, in our opinion, was wrong in its decision that the reopening should have been limited to 2.32 acres of land. The order being bad, particularly, as it is in conflict with the earlier order passed by the High Court on 10-8-1981, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and confirm the order passed by the Taluk Land Board. 9. There shall be no order as to costs.