Govindasamy Kounder vs The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms)

Swamikkannu, J.—The aggrieved Govindasamy Kounder, who was attracted by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation

of Ceiling on Land) Act(LVIII of 1961) as amended by Act XVII of 1970 has put forward as his main contention that he had not been given

sufficient opportunity to put forth his case before the Authorised Officer inasmuch as he had not teen granted three weeks adjournment sought for

by him when he received the notice from the Authorised Officer regarding the enquiry held by the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Cuddalore.

According to the Authorised Officer, the family of the revision Petitioner held on 15th February, 1970, 30.51 Ordinary Acres equivalent to

17.74 Standard Acres and after allowing a ceiling limit of 15.00 Standard Acres, an extent of 2.74 Standard Acres had been declared surplus.

Draft Statement u/s 10(1) of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 19th March, 1980 declaring a surplus of 2.74

Standard Acres. The published copy of the Draft Statement was served on the land owner, the revision Petitioner herein, on 8th April, 1980.

Against the publication of the Draft Statement, the land owner filed an objection petition u/s 10(5) of the Act which was received in time by the

Office of the Authorised Officer on 29th April, 1980. After negativing the request of the Petitioner for an adjournment on the ground that there

were no convincing reasons for such a request, the Authorised Officer proceeded to hold that the family holdings of the land owner as on 15th

February, 1970 were 30.99 Ordinary Acres equivalent to 17.93 Standard Acres. After allowing the ceiling limit of 15.00 Standard Acres to his

family and after-granting an exemption cinder Section 73 for an extent of 0.48 Ordinary Acres equivalent to 0.19 Standard Acres an extent of

2.74 Standard Acres has been declared as surplus. Several contentions were urged by the revision Petitioner herein in the said objection petition.

The only grievance now put forward in this revision petition is that when he had been served with the notice of hearing only on 5th May. 1980

directing him to appear for the enquiry u/s 10(5) of the Act on 12th May, 1980, in his objection petition, dated 6th May, 1980, he had asked for

an adjournment of three weeks and it was not granted and the orders were passed, and thereby he had been denied reasonable opportunity to pat

forward his case comprehensively before the Authorised Officer. In other words, his grievance is that he had not been heard and an order has

been passed holding that there were not sufficient reasons given by the Petitioner herein for the adjournment sought for by him. According to the

revision Petitioner, this refusal to grant adjournment has resulted in grave injustice and great injury has been caused to him, in that, the fundamental

principle of Audi Alteram Partem has not teen observed in respect of the provisions that are in existence in the enactment containing the said

principle, in this regard, it is seen from the order of the Authorised Officer that he was not convinced with the reasons given for the adjournment

sought for by the revision Petitioner and therefore refused to grant the request and thereafter proceeded to deal with the objections in writing filed

by him, and in feet, the Authorised Officer has dealt with the objections incorporated in the objection petition filed by the revision Petitioner herein

u/s 10(5) of the Act which was received in time by the Authorised Officer on 29th April, 1980. Ultimately, the Authorised, Officer has held that the

family holdings of the landowner, as already said, exceeded the ceiling limit and therefore declared 204 Standard Acres, as surplus. The

Authorised Officer has also observed that as the landowner has not given convincing reasons for the adjournment sought for by him, was negatived

and the objections already field by him were dealt with. In other words the objection petition filed by the revision Petitioner u/s 10(5) of the Act

had been disposed of by the Authorised Officer merely by perusing the rounds incorporated therein. The objection petition admittedly had been

received by him on 29th April, 1980. No doubt the notice dated 2nd May, 1980 to the effect that the objection raised by the revision Petitioner

would be enquired into on 12th May, 1980 was received by the Petitioner herein only on 5th May, 1980. It is seen that the revision Petitioner

herein had applied for an adjournment for three weeks by way of a petition, dated 6th May 1980, which admittedly was received by the

Authorised Officer on 9th May, 1980. The Authorised Officer has not incorporated in his order the reasons offered by the Petitioner herein and

has also not stated as to how those reasons were unreasonable and not convincing. He has, on the other hand, simply given his opinion that the

reasons offered by the revision Petitioner were not convincing to him. This is certainly an unreasonable conclusion. It is the basic principles of

procedural law of the land whether incorporated in the CPC or other proceedings that are incorporated in the special enactments that reasonable

opportunity should be given to the aggrieved persons who are to be held as coming within the purview of any enactment, whether it is penal in

nature or any other nature which is involved in the doctrine of eminent domain. The doctrine of eminent domain is one which deals with taking away

of property of a person by paying reasonable compensation.

In the instant case, we find that even the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur had not dealt with this aspect of refusal of a request for adjournment so that

the revision Petitioner can put forward his case personally with more details, of course, pertaining to the objections that had been taken by him

before the Authorised Officer u/s 10(5) of the Act. The and Tribunal Thanjavur had observed that the land owner (the revision Petitioner herein)

was given notice on 5th May 1980, that he did not appear for the enquiry held on 12th May, 1980 and that he had been extended every

reasonable opportunity, and therefore confirmed the order passed by the Authorised Officer.

This point which has been dealt with in such a manner by both the Authorised Officer and the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur, regarding the prayer

made by the revision Petitioner herein for three weeks adjournment to give him an opportunity to put forward his case before the Authorised

Officer by way of evidence to the various objections that were raised by him in the objection petition filed u/s 10(5) of the Act is very much

stressed by the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner.

The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand would submit that in spite of the fact that the representation on the part of the revision

Petitioner was not available before the officer, he had taken the trouble of going through the various records by himself together with the reports

submitted by his subordinates on enquiry, and as such, it cannot be said that reason able opportunity had not been granted. It is relevant in this

connection to note that when an application has been actually sent by the aggrieved revision Petitioner herein for en adjournment to put forward his

case personally as well as by producing the documents which would substantiate the various objections raised by him u/s 10(5) of the Act,

certainly this aspect ought to have been given some weight. There is absolutely no indication to show that either the Authorised Officer or the Land

Tribunal had applied their mind regarding this aspect which is the basic right of every citizen of this democratic country, especially when the action

is for declaring a particular holding as surplus and as such this, Court finds that both the orders suffer from a very serious infirmity which requires

interference by this Court by exercising its revisional jurisdiction. When once a notice had been sent to the aggrieved party regarding an enquiry,

reasonable opportunity should be given to him to put forward his case, and in case the aggrieved party makes a request for an adjournment, the

concerned authority should consider the reasons assigned for moving such an adjournment, and then the said authority may either grant or refuse

such a move for adjournment and record the reasons for doing so. In the instant, case, no such approach seems to have been made either by the

Authorised Officer or the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur. In these circumstances, the order under revision becomes revisable u/s 8 of the said special

enactment.

In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside, end the matter is remitted to the Authorised Officer for a

fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to the revision Petitioner herein to make his representation in an

adequate manner. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.