Judgment : Petitioner is the son of one Mr. Paily, who is now no more. It appears that the petitioner filed a return under the ceiling provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in respect of land bequeathed by his father to him, but including the land owned by his father also as part of the return. That return was accepted and further proceedings were dropped as per Ext. P1 order dated 28-6-1976 of the Taluk Land Board, North Wyanad. Subsequently, Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady, by Ext. P2 order dated 29-12-1998, re-considered the matter and again dropped further proceedings . Still again, by Ext. P3 order dated 29-6-1999, the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady has considered the return filed by the petitioner and dropped proceedings against the petitioner and his father. But, subsequently, again, proceedings were initiated by the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady and Ext. P5 order was passed directing to surrender 2.65 acres. Ext. P5 proceeds on the basis that the return ought to have been filed by Mr. Paily, the father of the petitioner, and he had not filed any such return. Therefore, proceedings were initiated under Section 85(7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It was found that Mr. Paily owned 25.25 acres, out of which he gifted 13.50 acres to his major son, the petitioner, as per gift deed dated 27-9-1971. By Ext. P5, it was held that the gift is valid only to the extent of 7.5 acres and therefore after giving allowance for other areas, Mr. Paily was liable to surrender 2.65 acres. That order is under challenge before me. The petitioner's contention is that after dropping the proceedings under the ceiling provisions thrice, the Taluk Land Board cannot re-open the ceiling case and direct surrender of 2.65 acres. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein Ext. P5 order is sought to be justified under Section 85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. But the learned Government Pleader would contend that the first three orders were mistakenly passed insofar as the property is belonging to Mr. Paily and not to his son Joseph. Therefore, the return should have been filed by Mr. Paily and he did not file the return as provided under Section 85(2). The Land Board has directed initiation of proceedings under Section 85(7), which only has been done by Ext. Paily and not to his son Joseph. Therefore, the return should have been filed by Mr. Paily and he did not file the return as provided under Section 85(2). The Land Board has directed initiation of proceedings under Section 85(7), which only has been done by Ext. P5, is the contention of the learned Government Pleader. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. When the property in question admittedly belonged to the petitioner's father, the ceiling return ought to have been filed by the father and not the petitioner. But, as is clear from Exts.P1 to P3 orders, what was considered was return filed by the petitioner, which was obviously a mistake insofar as the property being one belonging to Mr. Paily, naturally, only Mr. Paily could have filed the return under the ceiling provisions and not his son to whom part of the properties have been bequeathed. If that be so, and if the Land Board had directed the Taluk Land Board to initiate proceedings under Section 85 (7), perhaps the respondents could have made out a case. But, unfortunately for the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed seeking to justify re-opening of the ceiling case under Section 85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Admittedly, such proceedings have not been initiated within the limitation prescribed under Section 85 (9A). That being so Ext. P5 order is clearly barred by limitation. Accordingly, Ext. P5 order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed as above.