P. Shanmugam, J.

1. The revision is directed against the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board dated 22-11-1997, rejecting an application filed under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to reopen the determination of the ceiling. The facts are as follows: The petitioners are children of one Shri P.P. Abdu. The ceiling case of the family consisting of P.P. Abdu, his wife and their unmarried minor children as on 1-1-1970 was decided by the Taluk Land Board by order dated 3-11-1976 fixing a total holding of 31.04 ordinary acres and directing to surrender of the excess land of 15.53 ordinary acres. On a revision before the High Court in C.R.P. No. 5227/76 the Board was directed to reconsider and thereafter by a fresh order dated 22-2-1979 the ceiling area was re fixed and the declarant was directed to surrender an extent of 6.40 ordinary acres equivalent to 5.76 standard acres. The declarant again filed objections dated 5-8-1980 and 26-12-1980 under Section 85(8) of the Act and by order dated 30-3-1981 confirmed the earlier order and directed the declarant to surrender an extent of 5.76 standard acres of land. The declarant again moved the High Court in C.R.P. No. 766/82 against the Boards order which dismissed on 10-8-87. The SLP filed by the declarant was dismissed on 27-1-1995. Petitioners attained majority in the year 1976 and one of the petitioners, P.S. Suaikha, was married in the year 1976. Both of them filed a petition under Section 85 (8) seeking to set aside the order dated 30-3-1981. The Board by the impugned proceedings dated 22-11-1997 dismissed those applications as not maintainable. The revision is against this order.

2. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioners are persons interested and the determination of ceiling area was done without hearing them and, therefore, their applications ought to have been considered on merits. It is further submitted that even though the original order of the ceiling case was decided on 3-11-1976 and a revised order passed on 22-2-1979 at the instance of the declarant, the determination was reopened and a fresh order was passed on 30-3-1981. This order attained finality by the dismissal of SLP dated 27-1-1995. Therefore, their application under Section 85(8) of the Act itself within two years from the date of disposal and they have got sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and, therefore, the Board ought to have considered the matter on merits.

3. Learned Government Pleader while strongly opposing the revisions submits that the ceiling case of the declarant has become final on 22-2-1979, that has not been challenged either by the declarant or by the petitioners. The order of the Taluk Land Board dated 30-3-1981 was at the instance of the declarant was found to be unsustainable. Therefore, the proceedings initiated in pursuance to 30-3-1981 order and the subsequent revision before the High Court and the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court cannot be taken as the proceedings pending for the purpose of the determination of the ceiling case. H was pointed out by the Board that Section 85 (8) petitions of the declarant dated 5-8-1980 .and 26-12-1980 were overruled. Therefore, the subsequent order cannot be basis for reopening the earlier order.

4. Learned Government Pleader also objected to the maintainability of the application before the Board on the ground that petitioners are not persons interested and there is no scope for hearing the applicants while determining the ceiling case.

5. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and the respondent in extenso.

6. The main question that would arise for consideration is whether an unmarried minor who was a member of the family is entitled to object to the determination of the ceiling after attaining majority.

7. Sub-section (8) of Section 85 of the Act enables the Taluk Land Board to set aside the order of determination. In order to invoke this revision one must satisfy the following; (i) The Taluk Land Board should have determined the extent of the land to be surrendered by person; (ii) the said order was passed without hearing the applicant; (iii) the applicant must be any person interested; and (iv) the application should be made within sixty days unless sufficient cause is shown.

8. A family is defined under Section 2 (14) as to mean husband, wife and their unmarried minor children or such of them as exist. Section 2 (43) of the Act defines a person as to include a company, family, joint family, association or other body of individuals whether incorporated or not and any institution capable of holding property. Section 83 of the Act states that with effect from the notified date (1-1-1970) no person shall be entitled to own or hold in excess of the ceiling area. The excess land shall be surrendered as per the provisions set out by Section 85 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 85 enjoins a duty on the person holding excess land to file a statement before the Taluk Land Board. On receipt of the statement under Sub-section (5) of Section 85 the Land Board by order determined the extent of the land to be identified and surrendered. Before determining the extent and identity of the land the Taluk Land Board shall verify the particulars mentioned in the statement and prepare and publish a draft statement setting out the ownership, or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered by the person. A draft statement so prepared together with the notice in a prescribed form inviting objections to the draft statement shall be served on the husband and wife or such of them as exists if the draft statement relates to a family. The procedure is provided under Rules 9 to 12 of the Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules. The determination of the ceiling area is calculated after considering the objection by the husband or the wife as the case may and after conducting a detailed enquiry as per Rule 13 of the Ceiling Rules. A plain reading of the provisions relating to the determination in so far as the minor children and their rights are concerned it is the husband or the wife who would be filing their objections and participating in the enquiry for determining the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered. Under these provisions there is no scope for a minor after attaining majority or unmarried daughter after getting married to contend that they are persons interested and determination was done without hearing them. Sub-section (8) of Section 85 postulates an order passed without hearing any interested person. The expression "the interested person" in this context was the subject matter of the decision in, Venkiteswara Naidu v. Taluk Land Board 1981 KLT 545 . It was held that for the purpose of consideration under Section 85 (8) a person must be able to show that he has a claim upon or legal concern in the land. This expression has been used only to indicate a person who is in a position to establish aprima facie case. The petitioners cannot have a claim upon or legal concern in the land inasmuch as their interest has been determined after hearing their father as per the provisions of Section 85 (5) of the Act. Thereafter there is no scope for saying that determination was without hearing them. In other words after the determination they have ceased to be a person interested. The expression used under Section is determination without hearing any person interested. They cannot contend that they continued to have a claim or legal concern over the land in spite of the determination. If the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, it will lead to serious anomaly and disastrousconsequences. As on 1 -1 -1970, viz. the date of notification, the rights of the parties have been determined. The status of the persons have been determined as it stood on 1-1-1970. In almost all families there might have been minor children and unmarried daughters. The family has been defined so as to include them and determine their rights after hearing their parents. If the contention is accepted invariably all the minor children after attaining majority would be person interested and ceiling cases have to be reopened. By that time surplus land would have been distributed and a different scenario appeared. It will be unsettling the whole holdings. Subsequent changes in their status as a major or married minor child cannot alter the determination of the ceiling area. If a person happens to attain majority on 2-1 -1970, he will not be in a position to claim an independent share, since the relevant date for fixation of the ceiling is on 1-1-1970. In, Mathukutty v. Taluk Land Board, Ponnai, 1975 KLT 502, this Court has held that the status of the person, whether adult unmarried person or family on which depends the extent of the ceiling, is to be reckoned as on the notified date. Even though the divestiture of the ownership is postponed till the identity of the land under Section 85 (5) of the Act that will not touch the legal position and that under the joint operation of Sections 83 and 85 the ceiling area, so also inevitably the status of the person, have to be determined as on I-I-I970.

9. A Division Bench of this Court in, Pramod v. State of Kerala (1989) 1 KLT 803, has decided an identical question. In that case a minor as on 1-1-1970 sought to set aside determination on the ground that separate notice was not issued to their gifardian. The Division Bench observed that "in a case where the family consists of husband, wife and minor children, separate notice to the guardian or manager representing minor is not contemplated." According to Division Bench, the wholesome principle underlying the Rule {Rule 12 (2) of the Ceiling Rules) is to give an effective hearing to any person interested in the land, however remote be the interest and however, in a case of family consisting of minors separate notice to guardian or manager is not contemplated. Notice to the parents of minors is really and legally sufficient. Section 85 (2A) of the Act makes the position abundantly clear that the statement under Sub-section (2) has to be filed, in the case of a family by the husband or in his absence, the wife or in the absence of both, the guardian of the minor children. Rule 12 (1) (ii) of the Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules elucidates the position so far as sending the draft statement together with notice where the family consists of only minors. The decision in, Krishna TCumar v. Taluk Land Board 1981 KLT 594,;was distinguished. In that case there was an application to implead and that there is no case that their mother or father were acting adverse to their interest. The decision of the Division Bench squarely applies to the facts of this case and answers the contention raised by the petitioners.

10. Therefore the petitioners cannot be treated as a person interested and cannot be permitted to contend that the earlier determination was made without hearing them. In the year 1976 when the determination was made and 1979 when it was revised though the petitioners became major, their status as on 1970 was to be looked into and they were represented by their father. It is nowhere contended that their father did not advance their case properly or effectively or they acted prejudically or determentally to their interest or that father has deliberately opted the land in such a way that minors rights were affected. They have not filed any representation in the year 1976 when they attained majority or married or till the matter was finally disposed of on 22-2-1979. The order subsequent to the acquisition after the demise of declarants mother dated 30-3-1981 did not make any addition or fresh land to be surrendered. There was no change and petitioners lands were excluded. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that no such contention has been raised or argued before the authorities. His argument is that there is a possibility for a father to give up the land in the name of. minors affecting rights. In this case the vires of the provisions are not under challenge. Hence the claim of the petitioners being academic need not be gone into. Therefore, the question is to be answered against the petitioners.

11. The proceedings have become final on 22-2-1979. Even assuming that the declaration filed under Section 85(8) and order was passed on 30- 3-1981 if really the petitioners are interested person as claimed by them, they need not to have waited till it becomes final after the dismissal of SLP. Therefore, they have no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in seeking the reopening of the determination in the year 1997.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Board ought not to have gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioners. Once it is found that the petitioners are interested and the Board should have set aside the order of determination and proceeded to pass fresh orders. I am unable to agree with the said contention. It is open to the Board to consider whether the application itself is maintainable or that they have made out a prima facie case that determination was made without hearing the person interested warranting the reopening of the matter. For all these reasons the Boards order holding that there are ho grounds for filing Section 85(8) petition and that the petition itself is not maintainable cannot be held to be illegal. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.