Segm. Abdul Malik Sahib and another vs Sellappa Grounder and another

Ramanujam, J.—On an application filed by the petitioners herein under S. 17of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961, seeking reversion of certain

extent of land from his tenant (the first respondent herein), the Authorized Officer held that the tenant owns more than five standard acres and,

therefore, the lands in excess of the tenant''s ceiling area of 5 standard acres should revert to the petitioners. On an appeal filed by the tenant the

Tribunal held that even if the tenant is in possession of more than the tenant''s ceiling area, such excess land will have to be taken over by the

Authorized Officer as per the provisions contained in chapter VIII and that the lands cannot revert to the petitioners under S. 17of the Act. In this

view, the Tribunal remitted the matter for fresh disposal by the Authorized Officer after considering the fresh evidence that may be deuced by the

parties. The petitioners have challenged the said decision of the Land Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal is in error in holding that S. 17of the

Act cannot come into operation on the facts of this case and that even if there are excess lands over and above the tenant''s ceiling area the same

cannot revert to the petitioners under S. 17, but have to be taken over and dealt with by the Authorized Officer under the provisions of Chapter

VIII. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the view taken by the Tribunal is quite contrary to the view expressed by a Division

Bench of this Court in Visalam v. Addl. Authorized Officer 80 L.W. 100, In the sand decision, the identical question that has been dealt with by

the Tribunal was considered and decided by the Division Bench. There it was held that where a cultivating tenant''s holding is in excess of the

tenant''s ceiling area of 5 standard acres, the excess can be taken over by the Authorized officer under S. 62of the Act. But, if the excess is less

than the ceiling area allowed to a landowner, to the limit of the difference to make up 15 standard acres, the land in excess of the permissible

holding in the hands of the cultivating tenant will revert to such landowner. The said decision, if I may say so with respect, gives due effect to both

S. 17and S. 62of the Act, and proceeds on the basis that to the extent S. 17operates, S. 62cannot operate and that where S. 17cannot operate,

S. 62can be invoked by the Authorized Officer to have possession of the lands in excess of the tenant''s ceiling area. On the other hand, the

decision rendered by the Tribunal does not give effect to the provisions of S. 17at all and treats S. 62as being dominant and as superseding S. 17,

which specifically provides for reversion to the land owner of the land in excess of the tenant''s ceiling area, subject to the limitation contained in S.

As a matter of fact, the Division Bench has clearly stated that S. 62should be read subject to S. 17which means that S. 17will prevail over

chapter VIII. In view of the said decision which specifically deals with the relative scope and object of S. 17and S. 62of the Act and holds that S.

17will prevail over S. 62, the view taken by the Tribunal in this case that even if there is excess land, the same cannot revert to the landowner, but

will have to be taken over by the Authorized Officer as per the procedure set out in Chapter VIII cannot be accepted. The view of the Tribunal is

not only contrary to the decision referred to above, but clearly overlooks the object with which and the purpose for which S. 17has been

introduced in the statute. S. 17on the face of it clearly enables the landowner to have the excess land a reverted to him subject to the extent to

which the lands held by him after such reversion are not liable to be declared as surplus lauds in accordance with S. 5of the Act. Therefore, the

decision of the Tribunal dealing with the relative scope of S. 5and S. 62cannot be sustained as valid.

The learned Counsel for the first respondent would however point out that the main contention before the Tribunal in the appeal before it was

that the Authorized Officer was in error in holding that the first respondent was having more than the tenant''s ceiling area, that a partition decree

passed by a Civil Court showing the allotment of the properties between himself and the other members of his family has not been taken into

account at all, and that if the lands allotted in the said partition decree is taken into account, there will not be any surplus over and above the

tenant''s ceiling area. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal does not indicate that the said first respondent''s contention was considered and dealt

with by it. Though the Authorized Officer refers to the partition decree, of course, without much discussion, the Tribunal does not even refer to the

partition decree. The Tribunal does not even say that it either accepts the; findings of the Authorized Officer on the extent of the tenant''s holding or

does not accept the finding. The Tribunal merely proceeds on the basis that even if there is any excess extent, it will have to be dealt with only

under the provisions of Chapter VIII. This is not a proper disposal of the appeal filed by the first respondent. When the first respondent specifically

questions the finding of the Authorized Officer as regards the extent of his holding and says that his holding is in fact less than the tenant''s ceiling

area, that question has to be decided one way or the other before going into the applicability of the provisions of Chapter VIII. In Ail cast, the

Tribunal considered the question of applicability of the Provisions of Chapter VIII without giving a finding of its own on the question of the extent

of the tenant''s holding. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal had to be set aside with a direction to the Tribunal to consider the said contentions of

the first respondent herein, if necessary, after taking the evidence adduced by both parties, if any, and dispose of the appeal on the basis of the

evidence adduced and as per the directions given above. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.