Judgment 1. Whether a 'cashew estate' is liable to be exempted from the computation of ceiling area under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short) is the only question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition? 2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the declarant against whom a ceiling case numbered as TLB 1265/1973 was booked on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Thalassery. The Taluk Land Board by order dated 11.10.2010 had directed the declarant to surrender 34.17 acres as excess lands. The said order was challenged in C.R.P. No. 2713/2000 on the file of this Court under Section 103 of the Act. The declarant contended therein that lands acquired for public road and canal had been erroneously included in her account. The impugned order of the Taluk Land Board was set aside by this Court by order dated 06.08.2008. The case was remanded to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration enabling the declarant to put forth all her contentions. 3. The declarant after remand also contended that her family is entitled to hold upto 20 acres of land as per Section 82 (c) of the Act. It was the case of the declarant that the ceiling limit had been erroneously reckoned as 15 acres of land instead by the authorities. All these pleas did not obviously find favour with the Taluk Land Board which again passed an order to surrender the same extent. The said order of the Taluk Land Board dated 11.10.2010 was challenged in this Civil Revision Petition by the declarant (since deceased). The legal heirs of the declarant now seek the benefit of the amended provisions of the Act as regards the computation of ceiling area. The legal heirs confine their argument to the exemption provided for cashew estate under the amendment to the Act. 4. The legal heirs of the declarant point out that major portion of the land which was the subject matter of the ceiling case is cashew estate only. The same is reflected by the report of the Special Deputy Tahsildar who is the authorised officer under Section 105 A of the Act. Even the order of the Taluk Land Board shows that the entire extent of the land barring about 10 acres have been planted with cashew trees only. The same is reflected by the report of the Special Deputy Tahsildar who is the authorised officer under Section 105 A of the Act. Even the order of the Taluk Land Board shows that the entire extent of the land barring about 10 acres have been planted with cashew trees only. The legal heirs of the declarant rely on Section 81 (1) (f) of the Act for the purpose of exemption. It is on the other hand contended by the State that exemption on the ground of cashew estate had not been claimed before the Taluk Land Board. 5. I heard Mr. K.V. Sohan, Advocate on behalf of the legal heirs of the declarant and Mrs. Susheela R. Bhat, Special Government Pleader on behalf of the State. 6. Chapter III of the Act deals with restriction on ownership and possession of land in excess of ceiling area. Section 81 of the Act falls in this chapter and enumerates the categories of land liable to be exempted. The Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 35 of 1969 as regards exemption for cashew estates was as follows: "81. Exemptions – (1) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to - (a) xxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxx (d) xxxxxx (e) xxxxxx (f) Cashew estates existing at the commencement of this Act and having a contiguous extent of ten acres or more. Explanation: For the purpose of this clause, 'cashew estate' shall mean dry lands principally cultivated with cashew nut trees". But the exemption so granted was taken away by Act 35 of 1969 and consequently Section 81(1) (f) was omitted in the Act with effect from 01.01.1970. This aspect has been well noticed by this Court in the decision in Idicula Vs. Taluk Land Board, Kunnathoor [ 1976 KLT 550 ]. 7. The exemption for cashew estate was reintroduced by inserting Section 81(1)(f) to the Act by Act 6 of 2012 with effect from 19.06.2012. There is however a drastic change to the Explanation to Section 81(1)(f) of the Act attributing meaning to the 'cashew estate'. The Act as it now stands after amendment by Act 6 of 2012 reads as under: "81. There is however a drastic change to the Explanation to Section 81(1)(f) of the Act attributing meaning to the 'cashew estate'. The Act as it now stands after amendment by Act 6 of 2012 reads as under: "81. Exemptions – (1) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to -- (a) xxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxx (d) xxxxxx (e) xxxxxx (f) cashew estate Explanation: For the purpose of this clause 'cashew estate' shall mean any land principally cultivated with not less than 150 cashew trees per hectare." 8. Thus exemption for cashew estate has been reintroduced by inserting Section 81(1)(f) to the Act by Amendment Act 6 of 2012. The density of growth of cashew trees is however a relevant factor for the purpose of qualifying for exemption under Section 81(1)(f) of the Act. The land should be principally cultivated with not less than 150 cashew trees per hectare as per the Explanation thereof. Any growth of cashew trees of lesser density cannot attract the meaning of 'cashew estate' as per the Explanation. Such an insistence was wholly absent under Section 81(1) (f) of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 35 of 1969. Any dry land principally cultivated with cashew nut trees could qualify for exemption as per the Explanation thereof as it then stood. 9. I accept the contention of the legal heirs of the declarant that they did not urge this plea of exemption earlier since the Act was amended later only. The proceedings of the Taluk Land Board have not become final even though an extent of 17.04 acres of land had been surrendered. Nothing disables the legal heirs of the declarant from availing the benefit of the amendment now brought to the Act. I also accept the contention of the State that the density of growth of cashew trees has to be reassessed. This is because the existing report of the authorized officer is not helpful to decipher as to whether 150 cashew trees have been cultivated per hectare. A fresh site inspection of the cashew garden by the authorised officer with notice to the parties is essential. A remand of the case to the Taluk Land Board again for considering the questions focused above is therefore inevitable. 10. A fresh site inspection of the cashew garden by the authorised officer with notice to the parties is essential. A remand of the case to the Taluk Land Board again for considering the questions focused above is therefore inevitable. 10. The impugned order of the Taluk Land Board is set aside and the case remanded for reconsidering the question of exemption for cashew estate alone. The parties shall appear before the Taluk Land Board, Thalassery on 13.10.2014 which shall endeavour to pass final orders within four months. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.