Judgment : 1. Revision is against the Order of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad directing petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the declarant in a ceiling proceedings under Section 85(7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, for short, the ‘Act’, to surrender the excess land of the declarant determined as 10.67 ½ acres. 2. In the above revision, some third parties claiming that they have obtained under registered documents interest over portions of the land determined as excess area, applied for impleading them as additional respondents, separately, filing two applications. Such applications for impleadment of the respective petitioners therein were allowed making it clear that acceptability of the contentions raised by them will be a matter to be decided in the revision. Those applicants have been impleaded as additional respondents 4 to 15 in the revision. 3. I heard the counsel for revision petitioners, learned Special Government Pleader for Revenue, and also counsel appearing for third parties brought in as additional respondents in the revision. 4. The Taluk Land Board after getting sanction from the State Land Board initiated suo motu proceedings against Sri. Dhanikachala Udayar, S/o. Sethu Udayar, predecessor of the revision petitioners, who possessed more than 12 acres of land as on 01.01.1970 but failed to file the ceiling return. Enquiry revealed that he possessed a total extent of 26.96 acres of land and after the exemption available he was found possessing an extent of 12.87 ¼ acres in excess of the ceiling limit. Notice was issue to the declarant with a draft statement to file objection, if any. Declarant responded to that notice and filed an objection statement dated 30.10.1990 contending that major portions of the land covered by the draft statement are held by others before 01.01.1970, and, so, the proceedings have to be closed holding that he has no excess land beyond the ceiling limit. His objection that possession of some properties covered by the draft statement are with third parties was got enquired into through the authorised officer. The report of the authorised officer indicated that some third parties have obtained registered documents from declarant. Notices were issued to them to consider whether properties under the instruments taken are liable to be excluded. Only some persons who have obtained purchase certificates over portions of land covered by the draft statement from the Land Tribunal appeared and produced documents. The report of the authorised officer indicated that some third parties have obtained registered documents from declarant. Notices were issued to them to consider whether properties under the instruments taken are liable to be excluded. Only some persons who have obtained purchase certificates over portions of land covered by the draft statement from the Land Tribunal appeared and produced documents. After conducting an enquiry through the Tahsildar over the ownership and possession and also whether such claimants were eligible for exemption, claims of the occupants who obtained purchased certificates were upheld. Meanwhile, the declarant passed away, and his legal heirs, the present revision petitioners, were substituted in the proceedings. They filed an additional counter raising objections to the report of the Tahsildar. The Board again conducted an enquiry through the authorised officer over the objections raised by legal heirs of the declarant. 5. The authorised officer after conducting enquiry and verification of the documents filed a report stating that transactions covered by the registered documents had been made by the declarant to escape from the ceiling provision, and he continued in possession of such lands as on 01.01.1970. Transactions covered by the documents, some of them after 01.01.1970, but, all of them, after 01.04.1964, after the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963 were null and void under Section 84 of the Act, was, in short, the conclusion formed by the authorised officer on the enquiry conducted. Again the legal heirs of the declarant filed objection to the report of the authorised officer reiterating the challenge made over the inclusion of some lands covered by the draft statement and also claiming exemption over some other lands to exclude them in fixing the ceiling limit. No material was produced by the legal heirs of the declarant to substantiate the objections raised against the report of the authorised officer. After considering each and every objection with reference to the report and other materials available in the proceedings including the claim petitions of third parties, the Board determined the total extent of land held by the declarant. On such determination, the excess area to be surrendered by the declarant was fixed as 10.67 ½ acres. Petitioners, who were called upon to file option statement specifying the identity of lands to be surrendered did not file any statement. On such determination, the excess area to be surrendered by the declarant was fixed as 10.67 ½ acres. Petitioners, who were called upon to file option statement specifying the identity of lands to be surrendered did not file any statement. Thereupon, the Board passed the impugned order specifying the identity of lands to be surrendered in respect of 10.67 ½ acres of land determined as excess area of the declarant. That order is assailed in the revision by legal heirs of the declarant under Section 103 of the Act. 6. After filing the revision, an application was moved by petitioners to permit them to raise an additional ground that third parties who are in possession of some of the lands which have been ordered to be surrendered under the impugned order are ‘deemed tenants’ entitled to exemption of such lands under Section 7E of the Act, and as such, the order of Taluk Land Board over the properties held by such ‘deemed tenants’ shall stand abated under sub section (4) of Section 84 of the Act. Learned counsel for petitioners was permitted to urge that ground also to impeach the order of the Taluk Land Board. 7. The new ground raised as aforesaid that some third parties are in possession of the land included for fixing the ceiling limit of the declarant and they have the status of ‘deemed tenant’ under Section 7E of the Act is the sheet anchor on which learned counsel for revision petitioners assailed fixation of extent of land held by declarant on 01.01.1970, and, on its basis, orders passed to surrender excess area beyond the ceiling limit. Except in respect of an item of property, described under ground No.6 in revision, over an extent of 17 cents of land comprised in Sy.Nos.116/6 and 93/6, which is claimed as a pathway for exclusion, and, also a challenge raised over limiting the extent of land towards the tank and a house site, the rest of the grounds set forth by the legal heirs of the declarant to impeach the order of the Board in fixing the land to be surrendered is based on their case that third parties are in possession of the lands and they have the status of ‘deemed tenants’ and, thus, the lands in their possession are to be excluded. In respect of the land claimed as pathway and also the inadequacy of the extent of land exempted in respect of tank, which was allowed recognising the 1/4th right of the declarant in the property comprising that tank, and also the house site, no submission was made before me to impeach the Order of the Taluk Land Board. No material was tendered by petitioners to substantiate any additional claim for exemption over such lands before the Board as seen from the materials on record. I find, the challenges raised thereof to impeach the order of the Board have no merit. Third parties, with whom certain transactions over is properties had been made by the declarant, as stated by him in his statement, and also in the statements of petitioners, legal heirs of the declarant, repeatedly, at later stages, had been issued notices by the Board to verify whether under the transactions made in their favour they have obtained title and interest over any portion of the property of the declarant, and if so, whether such lands have to be excluded in fixing the extent of the land of the declarant for determining the excess area, if any, to be surrendered. Third parties who claimed of obtaining purchase certificates in respect of some potions of the properties of the declarant established their right producing the purchase certificates. None of the transferees of the declarant in whose favour registered documents over portions of the properties of the declarant were made, even after notice given, appeared and substantiated their right to exclude the properties covered by such transactions. Sections 7E and 84 (4) of the Act which have been brought into the Act under the Amendment Act 21 of 2006 would no way enable the declarant to contend that third parties who obtained some registered documents over portions of the properties of the declarant have to be treated as ‘deemed tenants’ and thus the properties covered by the transactions with them are to be excluded in fixing the extent of land of the declarant in the ceiling proceedings. So far as the declarant is concerned, the finding entered by the Board that the transactions entered by the declarant with such third parties are null and void cannot be set at naught contending that third parties involved in the transactions with him could claim status of ‘deemed tenant’ under Section 7E of the Act, which was inserted by the Amendment Act after the passing of the impugned order by the Taluk Land Board. If any of such third parties could claim the status of deemed tenant, by virtue of Section 7E of the Act, notwithstanding the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, it may be open to them to establish their status as such to insulate their acquisition if they are possessed of such lands, but, subject to other prescriptions made under the aforesaid section. Third parties can claim status of deemed tenants over properties acquired by them or their predecessors by way of purchase or otherwise on payment of consideration from any person holding land in excess of the ceiling area during the period specified under Section 7E of the Act if they are in possession of such lands when Act 21 of 2006 was brought into force, subject to the extent of lands prescribed, would have no impact in fixing the ceiling limit of a declarant with respect to the possession of land held by him as on 01.01.1970 when the statutory mandate is that no person shall be entitled to own or hold or possess under a mortgage lands in excess of the ceiling area from and that date. So much so, the challenges canvassed by the legal heirs of the declarant that some third parties in whose favour the declarant had made some transactions could claim the status of deemed tenant under Section 7E of the Act, and, therefore, certain lands included in fixing the extent of land of the declarant by the Board and determination of the excess land to be surrendered on that basis is wrong, has no merit. 8. Third parties who have come on record as additional respondents have not challenged the order of Board, and, in the revision filed by the legal heirs of the declarant they are not entitled to impeach such order. Section 103 of the Act enabled them, if aggrieved, to prefer revision against the order, but, they did not so. 8. Third parties who have come on record as additional respondents have not challenged the order of Board, and, in the revision filed by the legal heirs of the declarant they are not entitled to impeach such order. Section 103 of the Act enabled them, if aggrieved, to prefer revision against the order, but, they did not so. They have to work out their remedies, if any available, as provided by law. They have been impleaded as additional respondents in the revision do not confer on them any right to challenge the order impugned in the revision filed by the legal heirs of the declarant. No challenge from them against the orders can be entertained in the present revision. Revisional jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Act can be exercised only where the authority under the Act has either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. No such case has been made out in the revision for interfering with the order of the Taluk Land Board. There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed.