AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The first Petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same person. The second Petitioner in W.P. No. 8598 of 2004
is the daughter of the first Petitioner. The Petitioners were the wife and daughter of one Kittu. In the two writ petitions, the Petitioners have
challenged an order dated 30.08.1999 passed by the Land Commissioner in respect of the proceedings Nos. 23/98 and 39/98. The revision
petitions filed before the Tribunal were taken on file as SRP. Nos. 15 and 3 of 2001 respectively.
In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matters stood transferred to this Court and were renumbered as CRP Nos. 1907 and 1904 of 2003
respectively. However, a learned Judge of this Court opined that no Civil Revision Petition will lie as the officers whose orders under challenge
were not a Court but only statutory authorities. Therefore, the CRPs were converted into writ petitions and notice was ordered.
Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the official Respondents, a counter affidavit dated Nil was filed by the second Respondent. The private
Respondents 3 to 5 have also filed a counter affidavit dated 07.08.2001.
The case of the Petitioners was that the first Petitioner''s husband who was the land owner died on 16.07.1979. The details of the legal
representatives were given to the Authorised Officer by one Babu. He had also filed Vakalat. A Draft Statement u/s 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (for short Land Reforms Act) was published on 06.02.1985. Form No. 7 was given only to the
son of the late Kittu on 14.02.1985. Exemption was requested in respect of lands in Ikkaraipolurampatti and also the lands for which acquisition
have been made for Harijan Welfare Scheme and Water Supply Scheme. A settlement dated 30.01.1970 given by Kittu to his daughter was also
referred to. The legal heirs were put on notice on 30.03.1985. Only, the son Babu sent objections. An Officer also inspected the land for the
purpose of considering exemption. The Authorised Officer recommended the exemption u/s 3(22). In respect of Mangothoppu and one River pit,
exemptions were granted.
In the meanwhile, the Commissioner passed an order dated 11.07.1986 stating that exemption and exclusion should have been confirmed at the
stage of proceedings u/s 10(5). Accordingly, on 12.08.1987, the Authorised Officer passed the revised order granting exemption for Cart Track.
Settlement lands were included and thereafter surplus lands were declared. The Director of Land Reforms also directed some corrections. In the
meanwhile, since no notice was sent by the Authorised Officer to all the legal representatives, an appeal was filed.
The Land Tribunal by an order dated 30.11.1988 remanded the case for further enquiry. On remand, orders were passed on 12.11.1990 and
copies were served on V.K. Babu. Once again in the LTCMA 6 of 1991 filed by the Petitioners, orders were passed setting aside the order dated
12.11.1990. Thereafter, notice was given to the land owners. After allegedly serving notice, an inspection was done. In the meanwhile, the said
Babu died. Nevertheless on 12.09.1995, an order u/s 10(5) was passed and the order was also served on the two Petitioners. A final statement
was made on 21.05.1997. On 31.12.1997, an order u/s 18(1) was passed and the first Petitioner refused to receive the same. Hence, the service
was done by Affixture. Thereafter, the Land Commissioner keeping the final statement in abeyance directed the Assistant Commissioner to
conduct enquiry and notices were also issued to the interested persons. The contesting private Respondents have appeared and gave statements.
On 21.05.1997, final statement was passed and it was also published subsequently.
The stand of the Petitioners was that the order passed by the Commissioner on 30.08.1999 was illegal. As the Petitioners have not been put on
notice, their valuable right to represent had been denied. No notice was issued to the legal heirs of V.K. Babu and to the revision Petitioners.
In the counter affidavit filed by the official Respondents, with reference to the lack of notice, in paragraphs 9 and 12 of the counter affidavit, it
was averred as follows:
Therefore , again a date was fixed on 15.07.1994 and to that effect, a notice was sent to the legal heirs through R.P.A.D on 30.06.94 and the
same was acknowledged by the Revision Petitioners (Sarojini Kittu). But, neither the legal heirs on whom the notice was served nor anyone else
on their behalf turned up for inspection and enquiry or sent any written representation.
The order u/s 10(5) of the Act was passed on 10.2.88 and it was sent by R.P.A.D to Thiru V.K. Babu son of the deceased landowner and it
was acknowledged by him on 16.2.88. On receipt of the order passed u/s 10(5) of the Act, dated 10.2.88, the legal heirs of the landowner were
able to file appeals in LTCMA 6/88 and 6/91 before the Land Tribunal.
In paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, it was stated that at every stage, notice was sent to all the respective parties. Paragraph 14 reads as
follows:
Smt. Sarojini Kittu and V.P. Palanisamy @ Babu were shown as family members of the deceased landowner and notices were sent to them at
every stage of the Land Ceiling Proceedings. After the demise of V.K. Palanisamy @ Babu who died in the year 1995, his wife Banumathi was
put on notice for enquiry u/s 22 of the Act and she attended the enquiry and gave statement on 2.6.97 before the second Respondent. But the
Petitioners in this revision petition Sarojini Kittu and Chandralekha received notices but not turned up for the above enquiry. Therefore, at every
stage of the Land Ceiling Proceedings, notices were served on the legal heirs of the deceased landowner and as well as the legal heirs of the
deceased landowner''s son V.K. Palanisamy @ Babu, as contemplated under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on
Land) Rules, 1962. The fact that the legal heirs of the deceased landowner filed appeals in LTCMA 6/88 and 6/91 before the Land Tribunal
stands prove that they were in receipt of the alleged order. While determining the holdings of V.C. Palanisamy Gounder under the Principal Act
58/61, the lands that belonged to V.C. Palanisamy Gounder and his three sons were calculated and determined as per the entitlement and then
only the land holdings of V.C.P. Kittu as on 15.2.70 were determined and further action was taken. Before publishing the final statement u/s 12 of
the Act on 21.5.97 all the lands that belonged to V.C.P. Kittu Gounder were inspected by the Deputy Tahsildar (L.Ref) Coimbatore on
26.10.196 and 29.10.96 and then only the final statement was published.
With reference to the land of V.K. Palanisamy @ V.K. Babu not being considered, in paragraph 15, it was stated as follows:
An extent of 28.00 acres allotted to Thiru V.K. Palanisamy @ V.K. Babu the son of the landowner as per the registered partition deed dated
4.11.57 has not been included in the holdings of his father, but it was dealt within in a separate file. However, the lands allotted to Mrs.Sarojini
Kittu comes u/s VI (Stridhana property) of the Land Reforms Act and hence it was kept u/s VI while determining the holdings of V.C.P. Kittu.
Further, the partition made in document dated 3.12.59 was also verified and the land holdings of V.C.P. Kittu and his brothers were determined as
on 6.4.60 in MRI/66K/ORT (58-61) by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Thanjavur and based on which the land holdings of V.C.P.
Kittu was determined as on 15.2.70.
With reference to the transaction that took place after 15.2.70, namely the date on which T.N. Act. 17/70 came into force will have no bearing in
determination of the total holdings.
In the counter affidavit filed by the private Respondents, it was contended that they were purchasers of the land from the husband of the first
Petitioner and the purchase was bonafide. Therefore, the land measuring an extent of 82 cents must be deleted from the notification.
Mr. C.R. Prasannan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Tirumathi
Manoranjitham v. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) and Anr. 1984 MLJ 474 for contending that if there is failure to serve notice, then the
final statement should be quashed on grounds of mandatory provisions of the Act.
The learned Counsel further referred to the subsequent judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in The State of Tamil Nadu represented by
the Assistant Secretary, Board of Revenue (L. Refs) v. C. Chandra Mohan and Ors. 1986 MLJ 382 regarding mode of service to be effected on
the aggrieved person. In the present case, since that mode was not adopted, the question of serving by Affixture will not arise.
In the present case, the Respondents in the counter affidavit had clearly set out the nature of notices served on the Petitioners and there is no
denial by the Petitioners by way of any reply. Therefore, the order does not fail on account of any failure on the part of the official Respondents.
With reference to the subsequent transaction after the crucial date, the Supreme Court has held that such transactions are void and will not bind on
the authorities.
A reference may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Authorised Officer, Thanjavur and Another Vs. S. Naganatha Ayyar
and Others, . In paragraphs 16 and 17, the Supreme Court held as follows:
In the interpretation of Section 22 we too are Portia men. For this reason we reverse the view of the High Court that Section 22 will not apply
to nullify any transaction of transfer or partition unless it is further shown that it is sham, nominal or bogus. Nor do we agree with Shree
Ramamurthi that even if a transaction defeats the ceiling provisions, it may still be valid if the transfer is, from an individual point of view bona fide.
The short reply is that from the community''s angle, especially the landless community''s angle hungering for allotment, the alienation, however
necessary for the individual, is not bona fide vis-a-vis the community.
Therefore, we allow the appeal in the light of the interpretation we have adopted, restore the Tribunal''s holding and rule that if any transfer
defeats the provisions of the Act by reducing the extent of surplus land in excess of the ceiling available from any person such transaction, bona fide
or not, is void in the matter of computation of the permissible area and the surplus area. May be, that the transaction may be good for other
purposes or may not be. The Authorised Officer is within his power if he ignores it as void for purposes of Section 22 Section 7 and other ceiling-
related provisions.
In view of the above, there is no case made out. Accordingly, both the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is also closed.