ORDER 1. THESE APPEALS ARISE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PASSED IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1032 OF 1988-B ON 29-61989 AND IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 14 OF 1990 ON 5-4-1990 (SEEKING TO REVIEW F THE ORDER DATED 29-6-1989 IN THE REVISION PETITION). 2. THE SHORT POINT THAT ARISES IN THESE APPEALS IS, WHETHER THE RESPONDENT WAS IN DEFAULT IN NOT FILING RETURN UNDER SECTION 87 OF THE KERALA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1963. THE RESPONDENT CONSTITUTED A FAMILY. IT IS AN ADMITTED CASE THAT AS ON 1-1-1970, THE NOTIFIED DATE, THE FAMILY DID NOT HOLD ANY EXCESS LAND. HOWEVER, THE TALUK LAND BOARD INITIATED PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE G RESPONDENT ALLEGING THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY, THE HOLDING OF THE RESPONDENT AS AN INDIVIDUAL HAS EXCEEDED THE CEILING LIMIT AND, THEREFORE, HE OUGHT TO HAVE FILED A RETURN UNDER SECTION 87 OF THE KERALA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1963 (FOR SHORT "THE ACT") WHICH HE FAILED TO DO. THE RESPONDENT FILED OBJECTION TO THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS. ON H 4-6-1988, THE TALUK LAND BOARD HELD THAT, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY, THERE WAS EXCESS LAND OF .65 HECTARES AND DIRECTED ITS SURRENDER. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE RESPONDENT FILED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1032 OF 1988-B BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ON 29-6-1989, THE HIGH COURT, FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY IT IN ARYA ANTHARJANAM V. STATE OF KERALA1 AND HAJUMMA V. STATE OF KERALA2 SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD. THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IF THERE WAS ANY EXCESS LAND ACQUIRED BY THE FAMILY, THAT WAS TO BE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF RETURN UNDER SECTION 87 OF THE ACT. IN THAT CASE, THERE WAS NO EXCESS LAND AS NO LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY THE FAMILY ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY, THEREFORE, THERE CAN BE NO SURRENDER OF THE LAND. DISSATISFIED WITH THE SAID ORDER, THE STATE FILED REVIEW PETITION NO. 14 OF 1990. ON 5-4-1990, THE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE REVIEW PETITION. THAT IS HOW THESE TWO APPEALS CAME TO BE FILED IMPUGNING THE SAID ORDERS. 3. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT CHOSEN TO PUT IN AN APPEARANCE EITHER IN PERSON OR THROUGH COUNSEL, BUT HAS SENT COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT BY POST. 4. 14 OF 1990. ON 5-4-1990, THE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE REVIEW PETITION. THAT IS HOW THESE TWO APPEALS CAME TO BE FILED IMPUGNING THE SAID ORDERS. 3. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT CHOSEN TO PUT IN AN APPEARANCE EITHER IN PERSON OR THROUGH COUNSEL, BUT HAS SENT COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT BY POST. 4. MR JOHN MATHEW, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANTS SUBMITS THAT THOUGH, AS ON 1-1-1970, THE FAMILY HELD NO EXCESS LAND, YET ON THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY, THE HOLDING OF THE FAMILY EXCEEDED THE CEILING LIMIT AS THE SHARE OF THAT MEMBER WAS INHERITED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY, AS SUCH THE TALUK LAND BOARD HAD RIGHTLY DIRECTED THAT THE EXCESS LAND OF .65 HECTARES BE SURRENDERED AND THE HIGH COURT WAS CLEARLY IN ERROR IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD. WE ARE AFRAID, WE CANNOT ACCEDE TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL. ONCE IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE FAMILY HELD THE LAND WHICH WAS NOT IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING LIMIT AS ON THE NOTIFIED DATE I.E. 1-1-1970, THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY DIED WOULD NOT RESULT IN ACQUISITION OF LAND WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 87 OF THE ACT. THERE WAS, THEREFORE, NO CAUSE FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 87 OF THE ACT. THE LAND REMAINED WITHIN THE FAMILY. THERE HAS NEITHER BEEN ANY FURTHER ACQUISITION OF THE LAND BY THE FAMILY BY TRANSFER INTER VIVOS NOR OTHERWISE, THEREFORE, THE LAND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING LIMIT ON THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY. THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT AS AN INDIVIDUAL WAS, THEREFORE, UNWARRANTED. 5. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDERS UNDER CHALLENGE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS FAIL AND THEY ARE DISMISSED. 6. NO COSTS.