P. Govindaraja Naicker and another vs Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Madras

Kailasam, J.—The landlords are the petitioners. They seek to revise the order of the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) Chingleput

dismissing their application praying that the Tribunal may delete S.No. 88 of extent of 1-70 acres which had been declared as surplus by the

respondent, and may declare, in its place, lands mentioned in the revision petition, Dry S. No. 225 of an extent of 1.26 acres, S. No. 180/2 of an

extent of 1.38 acres and S. No. 181 (Part) measuring 27 cents totalling 2-91 cents, as surplus. The Tribunal dismissed the revision on the ground

that, when the decision by the Authorised Officer was made under S. 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act,

1961, the petitioners had a right of appeal under S. 78 within 60 days from the date of such decision and, as the petitioners had not availed of that

right of appeal, they could not invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal under S. 81. The Tribunal held that the petition under S.81 was not

maintainable. It is not disputed that an extent of 0.97 standard acre in S. No. 88 was declared as surplus under S. 10(3). It is also not disputed

that the petitioners have a right of appeal under S. 78 which has not been availed of. The question now is whether the petitioners not having

preferred an appeal under S. 78, are entitled to seek the power of revision of the Land Tribunal under S. 81. S. 81 of the Act runs as follows:--

The Land Tribunal may call for and examinees the record of any authorised officer within Its jurisdiction in respect of any proceeding under S. 12,

13, 14(1)(2), 50(5), or 50 (9) or

(ii) the record of any proceeding under Sub-S. 5 of S. 54 :

to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality, of property of any decision or order passed thereon; and if, in any

case, it appears to the Land Tribunal that any such proceeding, decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for

reconsideration, it may pass orders accordingly.

There is a proviso to the section which reads :

Provided that the Land Tribunal shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless he has been given a reasonable Opportunity of being heard.

It is significant to note that S. 81, which provides for revision, does not specify whether a petitioner having a right of appeal had failed to

exercise that right of appeal, the remedy by way of revision is not open to him. The power of revision is in addition to the powers conferred on the

Land Tribunal under S. 78. The Tribunal can exercise the power of revision on a petition filed by the aggrieved party or the power can be

exercised by the Tribunal itself calling for records. Inevitably the Tribunal has to go into the question whether the Authorised Officer has correctly

determined the surplus land. The power of the Tribunal under S.81 is not barred on the ground that the error in fixing the surplus land should have

been corrected by way of appeal under S. 78. The Land Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that it had no jurisdiction under S. 81, as the

petitioners bad not exercised the right of appeal under S. 78.

The order of the Land Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. The Land Tribunal may note that

the Authorised Officer, in fixing the surplus land, should under S. 10(3) specify in the draft statement the land which is capable of easy and

convenient enjoyment, and under the 2nd proviso to S. 10(4), the declared surplus land should as far as practicable be such as is capable of easy

and convenient enjoyment. The Land Tribunal may also consider the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the declared surplus land in

S. No. 88 is a portion of a bigger extent of land which, if taken out, would reduce the value of the land in their possession and cause considerable

inconvenience to them. The revision petition is allowed. No costs.