ORDER : Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. Leave is granted limited to the question mentioned in the order of this Court dated 15.11.1999, namely, why the matter should not be remanded to the Taluq Land Board in respect of claim for exclusion of land under the head: (i) Wind belt and (ii) Marshy land. 2. The appellant challenged the common order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRP.Nos.1403/90 and 1246/91 dated October 16, 1998. 3. These appeals arise under Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1962 (for short the 'Act'). The appellant a declarant under the Act, claimed exemption of 302.69 acres of land under the head wind belt, fuel, firewood and marshy land/swamps within the estate. The claim for windbelt was disallowed by the Taluk Land Board. However, on revision, the High Court accepted the claim only in regard to fuel and firewood and remanded the case to Taluk Land Board for determination of extent but rejected the claim for wind belt. 4. Mr. Singhvi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contends that there is no justification for rejecting the claim for wind belt with regard to tea plantation when the same can be accepted for rubber plantation. A perusal of the order of Taluk Land Board shows that a claim for wind belt was accepted in regard to rubber plantation having regard to the nature of trees of rubber. It felt that such a necessity does not arise in case of tea plantation. In view of this finding of the Taluk Land Board, the High Court declined to accede to the claim of the appellant for wind belt and confined the remand of the case to Taluk Land Board in respect of fuel and firewood. We find no illegality in the order of the High Court to warrant our interference. 5. The next claim which is pressed is that as against 80.29 acres of land claimed by declarant for Marshy land/swamps, the Taluk Land Board allowed only 50 acres of land and the High court has not dealt with the claim in regard to 30.29 acres. A perusal of the order of the High Court does not disclose that this point was urged before the High Court. A perusal of the order of the High Court does not disclose that this point was urged before the High Court. The question as to how much land was inundated and considered Marshy land and swamps within the estate is essentially a question of fact and Taluk Land Board being a fact finding authority has found it fit to exempt only 50 acres of land. We do not find any valid reason to direct remand of the case in respect of the said claims. 6. For these reasons the appeals are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.