JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. 1. The petitioners are the children of the declarant, Late A.K. Kunhalikutty Haji, in a ceiling proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short the ‘Act’). They impugn an order passed under Section 85(9) of the Act by the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady. By the impugned order, the Taluk Land Board decided to set aside an order passed under Section 85(5) and ordered to proceed afresh to determine the land to be surrendered by the declarant. 2. The total extent of the land shown in the return filed by the declarant was 2247.03.500 acres spread in different Taluks. In the draft statement accepted by the Taluk Land Board, the total land held by the declarant was determined at 780.84.500 acres. The land measuring 1466.19.000 acres in the verification statement shown was held by different tenants. The Taluk Land Board concluded the ceiling proceedings based on the draft statement as per the proceedings dated 01.06.2001 and the declarant was directed to surrender 29.24 1/2 acres. 3. A notice was served on the declarant as per Ext.P6 to reopen the proceedings under Section 85(9) of the Act. The specific grounds noticed in Ext.P6 are as follows: “The lands in Sy. No. 283 and 304 of Aralam Village of Thalassery Taluk which was ordered to be taken over, is in adverse possession. The declarant had sold the lands to other persons, even-though it was opted to surrender the land comprised in the said Sy. Nos. Hence the lands in the direct possession of the Land Records of the declarant is liable to be surrendered. 2. TLB had exempted 46.00 acres of land in Sy. No. 64/2A of Peria Village of Mananthavady Taluk being cardamom plantation. It is now noticed that the exemption so granted was without sufficient evidence. 3. Tenancy right over an extent of 1466.19.00 acres of land has not been proved.” 4. Ext.P7 seems to be issued in continuation of Ext.P6. The specific grounds noticed in Ext.P7 are as follows: 1. To examine whether the lands ordered to surrender were in adverse possession. 2. For want of proof that an extent of 46.00 acres of land in Sy No. 64/2A of Peria Village is a cardamom plantation. 3. For want of proof that an extent of 1466.19 acres of land was tenanted. 5. The petitioners raised objection vide Ext.P8. To examine whether the lands ordered to surrender were in adverse possession. 2. For want of proof that an extent of 46.00 acres of land in Sy No. 64/2A of Peria Village is a cardamom plantation. 3. For want of proof that an extent of 1466.19 acres of land was tenanted. 5. The petitioners raised objection vide Ext.P8. By a cryptic order, objections were overruled and the Taluk Land Board had decided to proceed further. This order is produced as Ext.P9. The petitioners approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 36093 of 2003. Taking note of the nature of the order passed, this Court set aside the order and directed the Taluk Land Board to pass a fresh order after adverting to the objections of the petitioners. This is how, the impugned order has been passed. Ext.P11 is the impugned order. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued in extenso and submitted that the Taluk Land Board has no jurisdiction and power to set aside an order, which is not forming part of an order under Section 85(5) of the Act. According to the learned senior counsel, the order passed under Section 85(5) covers only such aspects referable to the draft statement and any proceedings/order prior to the stage of draft statement under Section 85(5) cannot be interfered under Section 85(9). The learned senior counsel submits that such proceedings prior to the stage of the draft statement can be subjected only to review power under Section 85(9A). He further argued that even if the Taluk Land Board is having jurisdiction to pass such order, it can exercise such power only on the basis of the enumerated grounds under Section 85(9). According to the learned senior counsel, in this case, any of the grounds as referred under Section 85(9) is not attracted. 7. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Taluk Land Board is having all the powers under Section 85(5) of the Act, even to interfere with the acceptance of the verification report submitted. It is submitted that the Taluk Land Board was satisfied that entire 1466.19 acres could not have been excluded from the determination of the land to be surrendered by the declarant as the lease claimed by the tenant are all after the year 1964. 8. Section 85(1) of the Act refers to surrender of excess lands. It is submitted that the Taluk Land Board was satisfied that entire 1466.19 acres could not have been excluded from the determination of the land to be surrendered by the declarant as the lease claimed by the tenant are all after the year 1964. 8. Section 85(1) of the Act refers to surrender of excess lands. Section 85(2) states that holder of the excess land of the ceiling area shall file a statement before the Land Board detailing particulars of land held by such person. 9. The declarant had shown that 1466.19 acres of the land was held by the tenants. In terms of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 (for short, the Rules), a verification statement will have to be obtained by the Land Board in regard to the land held by a declarant. On receipt of such statement, the Land Board shall transfer the statement to the Taluk Land Board. The Taluk Land Board, thereafter, will prepare a draft statement of the land to be surrendered, which will be followed by a publication of draft statement (See Rules 9 to 11 of the Rules). 10. The very purpose of the statement is to find out the veracity of the claim of ownership or holding of the land by the declarant. Thus, after the verification as above, an order has to be passed under Section 85(5) of the Act. The same set of procedure will have to be followed by the person, who fails to file statement as seen from Section 85(7). The verification statement will form part of the proceedings under Section 85(5). It is an integral part of the proceedings under Section 85(5). The argument of the learned senior counsel that verification statement will not form part of the proceedings under Section 85(5), will have to be negatived. It is only after verifying the correctness or otherwise of the particulars contained in the statement, the Taluk Land Board can prepare a draft statement of the land to be surrendered (See Rule 9A of the Rules). Therefore, the Taluk Land Board is competent to reopen any case to verify the correctness of the particulars contained in the statement under Section 85(9). 11. Therefore, the Taluk Land Board is competent to reopen any case to verify the correctness of the particulars contained in the statement under Section 85(9). 11. In regard to the argument raised by the petitioners that Section 85(9) of the Act can be invoked only on enumerated grounds referred therein, this Court has to answer that this is a case falling under Section 85(9)(c). Section 85(9)(c) reads as follows: “In a case where a person is, according to such order, not liable to surrender any land, such person owns or holds lands in excess of the ceiling area.” 12. The learned senior counsel argued that Section 85(9) of the Act can be invoked only on such cases where no land is to be surrendered. He also referred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Francis vs. Taluk Land Board, Tellicherry, 1977 KLT 187 , to refer to the legislative background of the amendment by incorporating Sub Section (c) to Section 85(9). According to the senior counsel, since the declarant had surrendered the land having extent of more than 29 acres, this provision would have no application. The petitioners cannot say that any portion of the land forming part of 1466.19 acres have been surrendered. Therefore, on that ground alone, the learned counsel for the petitioners' argument must be rejected. Section 85(9)(c) would apply, in case, any portion of the land is found not liable to be surrendered. The word any can have different meaning relevant to the context. The learned Special Government Pleader had drawn my attention to the definition of 'Any' in Black's Law Dictionary (See Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition), which states as some, or one out of many etc. Any in this context only refers to those portion of the land not ordered to be surrendered. It would apply in cases where certain portion of the land is excluded from surrender. Thus, any portion of the land which is left out in the draft statement also can be proceeded under Section 85(9). 13. Next question is whether the Land Board is competent to proceed afresh to reopen the entire ceiling proceedings. This Court is of the view that the Land Board cannot reopen the entire matter. It can proceed only in relation to such land which according to the Land Board, needs fresh consideration. 13. Next question is whether the Land Board is competent to proceed afresh to reopen the entire ceiling proceedings. This Court is of the view that the Land Board cannot reopen the entire matter. It can proceed only in relation to such land which according to the Land Board, needs fresh consideration. The judgment of this Court in Varkey vs. Taluk Land Board, Quilandy, 1977 KLT 452 . 14. The learned Special Government Pleader was right in submitting that in respect of such land de novo hearing can be conducted after reopening under Section 85(9) of the Act. The expression 'afresh' in Section 85(9) clearly leads to the point that the Taluk Land Board can proceed in the same manner in which the matter was originally heard. Therefore, in regard to 1466.19 acres of land, the Taluk Land Board can conduct de novo hearing. 15. One of the grounds, on which, the Land Board reopened the matter is to consider the land having an extent of 46.00 acres exempted as cardamom plantation. The petitioners referred to the judgment in M.F.A. No. 248 of 1979. The Division Bench of this Court observed in the said judgment that 46 acres of the land was liable to be excluded as cardamom area in a proceedings under the Kerala Private Forest Vesting and Assignment Act, 1971. If the land is exempted and subsequently converted as non-exempted category, the proceedings under Section 85(9) cannot be initiated. The Taluk Land Board, however, is free to initiate action against the land under Section 87. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that no other grounds exist to reopen determination of ceiling covered by the draft statement. However, the Taluk Land Board is free to proceed against 1466.19 acres. 16. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed with the following directions: (i) The Taluk Land Board shall not proceed against any portion of the land covered by the draft statement in the guise of the order passed under Section 85(9) of the Act. (ii) The Taluk Land Board is free to proceed against the land having an extent of 1466.19 acres referred in the impugned order in accordance with law. (iii) The impugned order is interfered to the above extent. (iv) No order as to costs.