K. Visalam vs The Additional Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Nagapattinam

Vreeraswami, J.—The petitioner who is a landowner seeks to quash a notice issued to her in form 32 dated 18th January 1966 under the

provisions of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 1961. The effect of this notice is that an extent of 94 cents as being in

excess of a cultivating tenant''s ceiling area would be dealt with in Ch. VIII of the Act. The petitioner says that this extent of 94 cents should revert

to her under S. 17 (1). The question will turn on the construction of Ss. 5 and 17 and some of the provisions in Ch. VIII. S. 5(1)(a) defines the

ceiling area in the case of a person or a family. But this provision opens, with the words ""subject to the provisions of Ch. VIII"". Ch. VIII relates to

a cultivating tenant''s ceiling area, S. 59 limits the operation of this chapter to a period of three years, now extended to six years, from the date of

the publication of the Act. The next section defines the cultivating tenant''s ceiling area to be five standard acres held by any person partly as a

cultivating tenant and partly as owner or wholly as a cultivating tenant. There is an Explanation to this section to the effect that the expression

''cultivating tenant'' will include any tenant who is in actual possession of land, though he does not contribute his own physical labour or that of any

member of his family in the cultivation of such land. S. 61 requires a person holding land as a cultivating tenant to furnish returns in certain cases. S.

62 empowers the Authorised Officer to take possession of land in excess of the cultivating tenant''s ceiling area. In respect of the land taken

possession of under that section, there is the liability under S. 63 on the Government to pay rent. The lands so taken possession of are intended

under S. 64 to be distributed by the Authorised Officer in the manner indicated. The rest of the provisions in this Chapter are perhaps not relevant

for the instant purpose except S. 72, which says that the provisions of this Chapter shall, subject to the provisions of S. 17, have effect,

notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other provisions of the Act. This Chapter has an overriding effect and will prevail

notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Act, but such effect of the Chapter is, however, made subject to the provisions of

S. 17, which means that S. 17 will prevail over Ch. VIII. S. 17 (1) states--

Where any land held by any person as tenant is in excess of the extent of land which he is entitled to hold under S. 5, the possession of the land in

such excess shall, with effect from the date of the publication of the final attachment under S. 12 or 14, revert to the land owner where and to the

extent to which the land of the landowner himself is not liable to be declared as surplus land in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

While this provision is relied upon by the petitioner, for the Government it is said that it will not assist the petitioner to have a reverter of the 94

cents.

On facts, the petitioner owns 5 acres 87 cents. The total holding of the tenant is 5 acres 94 cents, no part of which he owns.

A tenant is defined by the Act to include a cultivating tenant. When S. 17(1) speaks of ""any person as a tenant"" it has to be taken that the word

''tenant'' there means a cultivating tenant in the present context. If he is a tenant and therefore a cultivating tenant, he will be governed by Ch. VIII,

and that means that for purposes of S. 5, he will not come within its ambit so as to enable him to hold 30 standard acres. The effect of the words

subject to the provisions of Ch. VIII"" in S. 5(1)(a) is in our opinion that the ceiling area fixed by that provision will not apply to a case of a

cultivating tenant for whom a separate ceiling is fixed by S. 60. That being the ease, when we come to S. 17 (1), the meaning it clear that where a

tenant or a cultivating tenant''s holding is in excess of the extent of the ceiling area fixed for him, namely, 5 acres, the excess tan be taken over, but

if the excess is less than the ceiling area allowed to a landowner, to the limit of the difference to make up 30 standard acres, the land in excess of

the permissible holding in the hands of the cultivating tenant will revert to such land-owner.

What the learned Government Pleader contends, however, is that the words ""subject to the provisions of Ch. VIII"" in S. 5(1)(a) do not mean

that a cultivating tenant in his capacity as a person cannot own what is permitted by that section. In other words, S. 5(1)(a) has application to every

person but not to a cultivating tenant. But inasmuch as a cultivating tenant is also a person, to that extent S. 5 will apply. But in so far as he is a

cultivating tenant Chapter VIII will apply. There is, therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, a ceiling within a ceiling, namely, that

as a person he can have 30 standard acres, but as a cultivating tenant he can have only 5 standard acres. If S. 5(1)(a) is understood in that manner,

it is obvious, according to him, that S. 17 (1) will not enable the petitioner to get a reverter of the 94 cents.

We cannot accept this contention. When S. 5(1)(a) says ""subject to the provisions of Ch. VIII"" in the case of a cultivating tenant, the only

provisions to be looked at for application in his case are those found in Ch. VIII. It follows that when S. 17(1) speaks of a tenant, he is a person

who is governed by Ch. VIII. Understood in that sense, which is the only sense in which the provisions aforementioned can be understood, we

have no doubt that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of S. 17(1). This will be more especially so, because S. 60 itself defines a cultivating

tenant''s ceiling area as so many acres held by any person partly as a cultivating tenant and partly as an owner or wholly as cultivating tenant. It is,

therefore, not permissible to make a dissection of a cultivating tenant as a tenant for one purpose and as a person for another purpose, namely, for

attracting S. 5. The petition is allowed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 100.