AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Venugopal, J.—The Petitioners have filed the Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings
issued u/s 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (58 of 1961) and the order made in Ref. No.
5T/MR.I/ 58.61/A2 dated 16.8.93 passed under Sections 10(1) and 10(5) of the Act and the notification issued u/s 12(1) of the Act in the Tamil
Nadu Government Gazettee Part IV Section 1 dated 17.12.1997 passed by the 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer & Assistant Commissioner,
(Land Reforms), Erode District and the order dated 11.8.1999 made in R.P. No. 147 of 1998 passed by the 2nd Respondent/ Land
Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai and the order dated 3.1.2001 made in S.R.P. No. 16 of 2000 passed by the 1st Respondent/Tamil Nadu Land
Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and to quash the same. Further, the Petitioners have sought for the issuance of a direction to the 3rd
Respondent in initiating fresh proceedings against the Petitioners from the stage of Section 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of
Ceiling on Land) Act, 58 of 1961.
W.P. No. 17035 of 2001:
The Petitioners have filed the Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings issued u/s 9(2)(b) of the
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (58 of 1961) and the order made in Ref. No. 5T/MR.I/58.61/A2 dated
16.8.93 passed under Sections 10(1) and 10(5) of the Act and the notification issued u/s 12(1) of the Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee
Part IV Section 1 dated 17.12.1997 passed by the 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer & Assistant Commissioner, (Land Reforms), Erode
District and the order dated 11.8.1999 made in R.P. No. 146 of 1998 passed by the 2nd Respondent/Land Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai
and the order dated 3.1.2001 made in S.R.P. No. 15 of 2000 passed by the 1st Respondent/Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai and to quash the same. Further, the Petitioners have sought for the issuance of a direction to the 3rd Respondent in initiating
fresh proceedings against the Petitioners from the stage of Section 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 58
of 1961.
According to the Petitioners, they are the daughters and son of Late Thirumalaisamy and Rukmaniammal of Puthur Village, Dharapuram Taluk,
Erode District. The family of deceased Thirumalaisamy consist of 9 members. The family members of Late Thirumalaisamy effected partition
among themselves as per the partition deed dated 02.12.1959. Their father expired on 20.09.1966 and their mother expired during the year 1995
.
The case of the Petitioners is that the 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer and Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode District initiated
proceedings as per Section 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 58 of 1961 without properly serving
notices to all the members of the family of Late Thirumalaisamy Naidu and in violation of principles of natural justice.
The 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode District inspite of division of status among the
family members considered the members of the Family as one unit and determined that the Family is holding surplus lands to an extent of 97.409
Standard Acres after allowing 30.00 Standard Acres as admissible ceiling area. The said order was not communicated to some of the family
members to enable them to put forward their objections.
The 3rd Respondent (Authorised Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode District issued a draft statement as per
Section 10(1) of the Act published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee dated 20.02.1991 proposed to declare an extent of 109.069 standard
acres of land as surplus lands, after deducting the extent of 13.12 Standard acres as per Section VI holding that these lands does not belong to the
land owner''s wife and correcting conversion into standard acres. Even the said notification was not served on all the interested parties who are the
family members of the land owner. Although notice was served on one of the family members, viz., T. Rajendran, no sufficient opportunity was
given to him. However, the 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode District by an order in
Ref. No. 5T/MR.I/58.61/92 passed an order as per Section 10(5) of the Act.
For the purpose of better appreciation of the matter, the order passed asper Section 10(5) of the Act dated 16.08.1993 is extracted hereunder:
Extent
Section -I Ordinary Acres Standard Acres
Holding of the land owner 363.89 1/3 119.129
Section VI 83.84 30.400
437.73 1/3 149.609
Exclusion/Exemption Granted Nil Nil
Net holding 437.73 1/3 149.609
Ceiling area section I 52.50 30.000
17.50 10.000
Total 70.000 40.000
Surplus Section I 301.39 1/3 89.129
Section VI 66.34 20.480
367.73 1/3 109.609
It is to be pointed out that the final statement as per Section 12 of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee dated
10.8.1994 and the order as per Section 15 of the Act was passed in Ref. No. 5T/MRI/58/61/A2 dated 19.11.1997 owing to the change in the
name of the Village and Survey numbers. Also an amendment to the final statement as per Section 12 of the Act dated 10.8.1994 was published in
the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee dated 12.3.1997 and another final statement on 17.12.1997.
The plea of the Petitioners is that the 3rd Respondent/ Authorised Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode without
serving copy of the said final statement to all the family members who are interested in the proceedings published a notification as per Section
18(1) of the Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee dated 30.09.1998.
Being dissatisfied with the notification dated 30.09.1998 published as per Section 18(1) of the Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee the
Writ Petitioners filed Revision Petitions before the 2nd Respondent in D1/R.P. No. 145, 146 and 147 of 1998. The said Revision Petitions were
dismissed by the 2nd Respondent by means of an order dated 11.08.1999 without properly considering the matter in issue. Thereupon, the
Petitioners and others filed S.R.P. Nos. 14, 15 and 16 of 2000 on the file of the 1st Respondent/Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai.
The main contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioners is that the 1st Respondent/Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal set
aside the notification as per Section 18(1) of the Act and remanded the case, holding that the notices were not served on the Petitioners and others
properly. Further, the date of marriage of the Petitioners and their holdings are to be determined afresh, but, instead of setting aside the order from
the stage of Section 9(2)(b) of the Act, the 1st Respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal set aside the order only from the stage of Section 14 of the
Act by means of a common order dated 3.1.2001. As against the said order, the Petitioners herein have projected these present Writ Petitions.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners urges before this Court that the impugned order of the 1st Respondent, so far as it relates to the
Petitioners, is contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 58 of 1961.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the 1st Respondent has not taken into account the extent of 96.96 Ordinary Acres of
land which have been wrongly included in the holdings of Rukmaniammal inspite of a finding that the partition effected in her favour is invalid and
moreover, the total holdings of the entire family of late Thirumalaisamy Naidu has been arrived at an extent of 395.65 1/3 Ordinary Acres and
therefore, the said omission vitiates the entire proceedings.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Respondents have misconstrued the findings rendered in O.S. No. 6 of 1971 on the
file of the Sub Court, Erode and thereby committed an error in holding that the partition effected on 02.12.1959 as an invalid one without
considering the fact that a compromise has been entered into between the parties to the suit and the decree has been passed to that effect, dividing
the properties among the family members and for all practical purposes the family members have been divided in status during the year 1959 itself
even prior to the introduction of the Act.
The Petitioners take a plea that the Respondents should have treated the family of late Thirumalaisamy Naidu as divided family in status on the
basis of the partition effected among the members of the family and should have treated each member of the family as a separate family and fixed
the ceiling limit as per Section 5 of the Act.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Respondents ought to have determined the ceiling limit of the family of late
Thirumalaisamy Naidu, consisting of 9 members, as 50 standard acres instead of allowing them to retain only 30 Standard Acres and therefore, the
said approach of the Respondents vitiates the entire proceedings.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners strenuously contends that the 1st Respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal having noted that the notices
have not been served on all the family members of late Thirumalaisamy Naidu in all the stages of the proceedings should have set aside the entire
orders commencing from the order passed u/s 9(2)(b) of the Act.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners take a legal plea that the 1st Respondent has misconstrued Sections 4 and 23 of the Act and thereby
erred in holding that a registered partition effected between the parties on 02.12.1959 as void and thereby erred in holding that the transfer and
sub division effected after the notified date i.e. after 02.10.1960 and before the publication of notification u/s 18(1) of the Act is void.
According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the 1st Respondent has gone wrong in holding that the compromise decree dated
27.11.1976 in O.S. No. 6 of 1971 is non est in law and the further observation that the properties will continue to be in the holding of the land
owner for the purpose of the statute is not a valid and proper one in the eye of law.
The Petitioners contend that the 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer and Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode District has
committed an error in passing an order as per Section 9(2)(b) of the Act without proper service of notice on all the family members and therefore,
the entire subsequent proceedings and orders culminating an order u/s 10(5) and 18(1) of the Act are non est in law.
According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the Respondents have erred in holding that the order passed as per Section 9(2)(b) of
the Act has been served on Rukmaniammal, Sundaralakshmi, T. Rajendran and Dhanasegaran through the Special Revenue Inspector,
Dharapuram without effecting service as provided under Rule 8(d)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Rules 1962.
Furthermore, the 3rd Respondent/ Authorised Officer and Assistant Commissioner having noted that the notices could not be served on
Kamalaveni, Boopalan and T. Vidyasekaran by registered post since the same has been returned unserved, should have served notice on the other
mode envisaged under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Rules 1962.
The 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer and Assistant Commissioner has failed to include the names of 1) Sundaralakshmi and 2) Kamalaveni
in the notification issued as per Section 12(1) of the Act and this omission vitiates the entire proceedings according to the Petitioners.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the 3rd Respondent should have taken note of the alienations effected by the individuals
in favour of third parties before the enactment of Land Reforms Act by the Legislature. But the 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer and the
Assistant Commissioner has committed an error in including the aforesaid properties either in the list of surplus lands or in the holdings of the land
owners. In short, the non consideration of the said facts vitiate the entire findings.
Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that if the proceedings finalising the ceiling area is determined from the
stage of Section 14 of the Act, the earlier orders passed as per Section 9(2)(b), 10, 12 of the Act will become final and they cannot agitate their
independent right of holding within the purview of Section 5 of the Act.
Per contra, the Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents submits that the 1st Respondent/Special Appellate
Tribunal, in its Common Order in S.R.P. No. 14 to 16 of 2000, filed by one T. Vidyasagaran S/o. Late Thirumalaisamy Naidu (Petitioner in
S.R.P. No. 14/2000), T. Boobalan S/o. Late Thirumalaisamy Naidu, the Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 17035 of 2001 (Petitioner in S.R.P. No.
15/2000), Thayarammal, Kamalaveni and Kothainayaki, the Writ Petitioners in W.P. No. 17034 of 2001 (Petitioners in S.R.P. Nos. 16/2000),
on 03.01.2000, has, among other things, observed that ''the compromise decree dated 27.11.1976 in O.S. No. 6/71 on the file of Subordinate
Court at Erode is non est in the eye of law and the lands dealt with under the compromise decree dated 27.11.76 in O.S. No. 6/71 will continue to
be the holdings of the land owner for the purpose of this statute etc. and accordingly, allowed S.R.P. Nos. 14 to 16 of 2000 by setting aside the
impugned common order dated 11.08.1999 in R.P. Nos. 145 to 147 of 1998. Further, the 1st Respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal also
remanded the matter back to the 3rd Respondent/Assistant Commissioner (Authorised Officer) of Land Reforms, Erode for fresh disposal in
accordance with law, from the stage of Section 14 of the Act and then to issue the notification as per Section 18(1) of the Act after considering the
objections of the legal heirs of the land owner Thirumalaisamy Naidu and others. Furthermore, the 1st Respondent/ Special Appellate Tribunal has
directed the 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer to issue notices to all the legal heirs of Thirumalaisamy Naidu and also the Petitioners in R.P. Nos.
3/99 and 20 to 30/99 by Registered Post with Acknowledgement due, and if any one of them refuses to receive the same, then, it must be treated
as sufficient service on them and to proceed with the matter accordingly and pass necessary amendment to the final statement as per Section 14 of
the Act after due enquiry within six months from the date of the order and thereafter to issue the notification u/s 18(1) of the Act.''
The Learned Special Government Pleader brings it to the notice of this Court that before filing of R.P. Nos. 145 to 147 of 1998 by the Writ
Petitioners and another/Revision Petitioners, one Govindarajulu and 11 others filed R.P. No. 3/89 in respect of the notification as per Section
18(1) of the Act. The Land Commissioner, in R.P. No. 3/89, by his order dated 23.4.89, has remanded the matter to the 3rd
Respondent/Assistant Commissioner (Authorised Officer) of Land Reforms at Erode to determine the title in respect of the suit land after
conducting an enquiry and also set aside the notification as per Section 18(1) of the Act. Continuing further, one Chellappa Gounder and 10 others
have filed Revision Petitions R.P. Nos. 20 to 30/89 on the file of the Land Commissioner against the notification made u/s 18(1) of the Act.
However, the Land Commissioner has dismissed R.P. Nos. 20 to 30/89 as premature inasmuch as the notification issued u/s 18(1) of the Act has
already been set aside in R.P. No. 3/89 dated 23.4.89 passed by the Land Commissioner.
It is to be pointed out that the 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode in the proceedings
in Reference No. 5T/MR.I/58.61/92 dated 16.08.1993 has observed as follows:
(Late) Thiru R. Thirumalaisamy Naidu, S/o. Thiru, Ramasamy Naidu of Goindapuram, H/oPuthur Village, Dharpuram Taluk of Periyar District
held an extent of 395165 1/3 ordinary acres enquivalent to 123.590 standard acres of land as on 06.04.60, the date of the commencement of the
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (FCI) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act No. 58 of 1961), hereinafter called the Act. The land owner dies during the year
1966. As the land owner was alive on the notified date of the Act, i.e., 2.10.62, action under the provisions of the Act was, therefore, initiated to
declare the surplus available in the holdings of the land owner.
(2)The land owners, his wife, Tmt. Rukumaniammal and his four minor sons (viz) Rajendran (1), Boopalan(2), Vidyasekaran (3) and
Dhanasekaran(4), made a family partition among themselves through a registered document bearing No. 3784/59 dated 02.12.59. According to
the partition deed the lands held by the family were divided among the members of the family of the land owner as detailed below;
Ordinary Acres Standard Acres
i)ThiruamalaisamyNidu (Puthur Village) Land102.01 37.795
Owner
ii)Rukumaniammal, Wife of the land owner, 89.70 22.986
Puthur Village
Pannapuram Village 25.13 5/6 6.283
114.841 1/3 29.269
Shares of his minor sons:-
iii)Rajendran 36.27 14.087
iv)Boopalan 36.27 12.507
v)Vidyasekaran 55.16 17.52
vi)Dhanaseekaran 51.08 17.35
Also, the 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode, in his order dated 16.08.1993, has
stated hereunder:
The partition was effected on 2.12.69. It is not valid as the partition was effected between the land owner, his wife and minor sons other than the
coparceners. Further partition is also not valid as per the judgment in O.S. No. 6 of 1971 dated 27.11.76 of the sub-court, Erode and it was
declared as nominal transaction. Therefore, the family members among them partition was affected have to be treated as one unit as on 6.4.1960
the date of the commencement of the Act for the purposes of proceedings under the Act. The family of the land owner consists of himself his wife
Rukmaniammal and 4 minor sons as on notified date of the Act Based on the above partition deed, the land owner held on extent of 396.65 1/3
ordinary acres equivaent to 128.590 standard acres of land. But of this an extent of 55.68 ordinary acres was inam land, for which ryotwari pattas
was issued to different person. The share of the land owner as per the pattas issued is account in the determination of holdings of the land owner. Tmt. Rukmaniammal held the following lands in her name as on the date of the
commencement of the Act.
Extent
Ordinary Acres Standard Acres
Village Puthur 83.64 19.520
Pannapuram 13.32 3.330
96.96 32.850
Apart from the above, the 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode in the course of his
order dated 16.08.1993, has proceeded to state hereunder:
The land owner expired during the year 1966. To determine the holdings of the land owner under the provisions of the Act, notices were issued
to his wife Tmt. Rukmaniammal and his legal heirs. None of them appeared for enquiry and produced documentary evidence. Therefore, with
reference to available records, the holding of the land owner and his family were determined u/s (2) (b) of the Act as detailed below:
Extent
Section I Ordinary Acres Standard Acres
Holding of 395.65 1/3 128.590
Thiru.ThirulaisamyNaidu
Deduct the extent for which 47.76 14.031
ryotwaripatta was not issued for
inam lands
353.891 1/3 114.559
Ceiling areas admissible 30.000
Surplus 84.559
Section VI
Holding of Tmt.Rukmaniammal 96.96 22.850
Stridhana admissible 10.000
Surplus 12.850
ABSTRACT FOR SURPLUS
Section I 84.559
Section VI 12.850
Total 97.409
Thus there is an acquirable surplus of 97.409 standard acres of land from the holding of the family of the land owner. The land owner was directed
to offer surplus land to an extent of 97.409 standard acres for being declared as surplus which are from encumbrances, fit for cultivation and
convenient enjoyment of the eventual assignees.
It transpires from the order of the 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode that ''the order
u/s 9(2) (b) of the Act was sent to Tmt. Rukmaniammal (1)Sundaralakshmi (2)Thiru, T. Rajendran (3) and T. Dhanasekaran (4) being the legal
heirs of the deceased land owner for service through the special Revenue Inspector(L. Ref) Dharmapuram. But they refused to receive the order
and so the order was served on these persons by way of affixture. The order was also sent to the legal heirs Tmt. Kamalaveni (1) Kothinayaki
(2)T. Boopalan (3)and T. Vivekanandan (4)by RPAD out of these four persons, Tmt. Kothainayaki alone had received the order on 08.09.90 and
in respect of the other three persons, the portal authorities have returned the covers with endt, ''Party absent in 7 beats'' not known.
The draft statement u/s 10(1) of the Act was accordingly, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, (No. 7C) dated 20.02.91 proposing
to declare an extent of 367.73 1/3 ordinary acres equivalent to 109.609 standard acres of lands as surplus, after deducting an extent of 13.12
acres u/s VI as not belonged to the land owner''s wife and correcting conversion into standard acres.
The 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode in the order dated 16.08.1993 has observed
that ''the Copy of the draft statement, as published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, along with a notice in form No. 7 calling for objections,
if any, was sent to the legal heirs by RPAD of 24.07.91. Thiru. T. Rajendran, S/o. (Late) Thiru. Thirumalaisamy Naidu filed a petition on 10.12.91
stating that he would produce necessary documents in support of his claim. A notice was sent to him on 4.8.92 to file documentary evidence in
support of his claim, if any. As he did not file any document another notice was issued to him on 17.8.92 to produce material evidences in support
of his claim. On 14.9.92 he appeared and gave a statement, in which he has requested time till 23.9.92 to produce the documentary evidences.
But he has not done so even after the lapse of a period of two months.
Therefore, the 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode had presumed that the legal heirs
of the land owner had no objection to the declaration of surplus lands in the holding of the land owner and passed an order as per Section 10(5) of
the Act to the effect that the holdings, ceiling area and surplus in the family of the deceased land owner as below:
Extant Holdings of the land owner 363.89 1/3 119.129
Section IV 83.84 30.480
437.73 1/3 149.609
Exclusion/Exemption Granted Nil Nil
Not holding 437.73 1/3 149.609
Ceiling areas section I 52.50 30.000
17.50 10.000
70.000 40.000
Surplus Section I 301.39 1/3 89.129
Section VI 66.34 20.480
367.73 1/3 109.609
Moreover, the legal heirs of the deceased land owner were requested to specify the surplus lands within 15 days from the date of receipt of the
order etc.
In the Tamil Nadu Gazette Notification No. 49 dated 17.12.1997 the amendments have been issued in respect of final statements wherein the
total ordinary acres are mentioned as 353.71 5/6 which is equivalent to 104.908 standard acres.
The Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Notification dated 30.09.1998 issued in respect of Section 18(1) of the Act speaks of surplus lands of
Thirumalaisamy Naidu that G.O. Ms. No. 756, Revenue (LR-I(2), 9th September 1998) in and by which the total ordinary acres of 353.71 5/6 is
mentioned as equivalent to 104.908 standard acres, Govindapuram Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District, Ponnapuram Village, Dharapuram
Taluk, Erode District, Chinnaputhur Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District.
By means of final notice dated 24.05.2001, the 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode
has directed the Writ Petitioners and others to appear before him on 25.06.2001 at about 11.00 a.m. on the morning along with all the records.
At this stage, we aptly points out the decision in C. Muthu Bhattar Vs. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), wherein it is held as follows:
From the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act it is clear that the opportunity contemplated in Section
9(2)(b) of the Ceiling Act is only in respect of cases where the party does not furnish any information u/s 8 of the Act. Admittedly the Petitioner
has furnished information and a statement was prepared on the basis of the return filed by him u/s 8(1) of the Ceiling Act. Hence the contention that
the failure to give opportunity to the Petitioner to make representation, u/s 9(2)(b) of the Ceiling Act is fatal, cannot be appreciated inasmuch as the
draft statement was published on the baste of the return furnished by the Petitioner u/s 8(1) of the Ceiling Act. The provision in Section 9(2)(b) of
the Ceiling Act need not be invoked.
We also worth recall the decision in Antony Viagulam Fernando, through his power of Attorney Augustine Vs. The Authorised Officer (Land
Reforms), wherein it is held hereunder:
The right to receive evidence is not an incident of any forum, judicial or otherwise. But, if the statute which constitutes the forum, confers a power
on it to receive evidence, that would definitely bring the forum within the meaning of ''Court'' under the Evidence Act. In the course of proceedings
before the Authorised Officer, the adducing of evidence before him is contemplated. Section 9(2)(6) of the Act enables the person concerned to
make his representation and adduce evidence; and this representation and evidence will have to be the subject-matter of consideration u/s 10 of
the Act by the Authorised Officer In this context, Rule 11 framed under the Act, when it says that the provisions of the CPC with regard to the
examination of parties and witnesses shall govern the proceedings of the Authorised Officer, cannot be lost sight of. The considerations which
should weigh for the purpose of finding out as to the applicability or otherwise of the Evidence Act to a particular proceeding, will be different from
those for the purpose of finding out as to whether a particular forum is a ''Court'' or a ''Court of Justice'' or not within the meaning of Section
213(1) of the Indian Succession Act. The definition of a ''Court'' for the purpose of the Evidence Act, as embodied in Section 3 thereof appears to
be wider in scope. It can take in persons legally authorised to take evidence. The Authorised Officer will definitely come within the definition of
''Court'' u/s 3 of the Evidence Act.
It is to be borne in mind that the notice envisaged u/s 10(5) & 12 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961
should be served on the land owner and any failure to serve the notice would be violation of the mandatory provision of the Act as per decision
Tirumathi Manoranjitham Vs. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) and Another, .
In the decision N. Rajammal (Died) and Anr. v. P. Maragathammal and Ors. 1998 1 M.L.J. 184 at special page 194 in para 37, this Court,
has among other things, held that ''Ex.A.1 partition is not a void document altogether. It is void only to the extent that it exceeds the ceiling limits of
late Appasami Naidu etc.
In Rajagopal Pillai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, by the Collector of South Arcot and Another, , it is laid down as follows:
The provision in Section 10(2) of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, that hte authorised officer should take into account
the members of the family who are alive on the notified date would logically mena that the authorised officer could fix the members of the family as
on the notified date by taking into account the substraction by the minor becoming major or by the unmarried daughter getting married, who are by
virtue of the definition of ""family"" excluded from the definition.
In S.R. Ramasami Gounder Vs. The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, , it is held as follows:
Section 3(42) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act defines ""stridhana land"" as meaning any land held on the date of the commencement of the Act
by any female member of a family in her own name. ""To hold land"" has been defined in Section 3(19) to mean to own land, as owner or to possess
or enjoy land as mortgagee or as tenant etc. Therefore, if a person owns lands as owner, then he would be a person deemed to hold such land for
the purpose of the Land Reforms Act. The mere fact that there has not been a change in the public register would not take away such holding from
the mischief of the Act.
Under Section 10(4), if any person has specified the particulars of the land which he desires to retain within his ceiling area, the authorised officer
shall, as far as practicable, but subject to the provisions of the Act, declare the same land as comprised within his ceiling area. The very purpose of
the agrarian reform is to slice off the extent of lands from the landholders for the avowed and benevolent purpose of passing them on the landless
poor so that they could easily and conveniently enjoy it. The phrase ""capable of easy and convenient enjoyment"" in the third proviso to Sub-clause
(4) has a special connotation. Otherwise, every landholder would have the choice to give such useless land and probably inaccessible land or land
which cannot easily or conveniently be enjoyed under Clause (4) and the Authorised Officer would in equity be bound to accept the same and
leave the rest. This does not appear to be the intendment of either the subclause or the object of the enactment either. The easiness and
convenience referred to in the third proviso in Sub-clause (4) has reference only to the State whose object is to pass on such lands taken over by it
to others who do not own land, so that they could easily enjoy the same.
In Ramachandra Chettiar Vs. G.M. Ramaswami Chettiar and Another, it is observed and held as follows:
The publication of the final statement u/s 12 and the notification u/s 18 could be only subject to the result of the revision petition which had been
pending.
As no copy of the final statement u/s 12 or u/s 14 had been served on the revision-Petitioner which is a clear violation of the provision contained in
Section 12 itself, there had been no proper publication of the final statement. The publication of notification u/s 18 would be proper only if there
had been proper publication of the final statement u/s 12.
Again the notification u/s 18 (since it had not been published in the District Gazette of the district concerned) has also not been properly published.
Under such Circumstances, it could not be contended, in any event, that due to subsequent events, namely the notification u/s 18 vesting the land in
the Government, the revision-Petitioner had to go without remedy.
The order of the Authorised Officer on the objection of the revision Petitioner as confirmed by the appellate authority was liable to be set aside.
In N. Krishnaraju v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Vellore and Ors. AIR 1967 Mad 352 (DB) it is held thus:
Sections 18, 50 and 55 of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act are not colourable exercise of the power under Schedule 7
List 3 Entry 42 of the Constitution.
The effect of the provisions of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act in relation to the definition of ""family"" in Section 3(14)
of the Madras Act and the ascertainment of surplus land over the ceiling area is merely for applying ceiling and ascertaining the surplus. The
Madras Act nowhere provides a power to compel transfer of land from one person to another. Titles of lands are also not mixed up for payment
of compensation. The argument that Sections 18, 50 and 55 of Madras Act is a colourable exercise of power under List 3 Entry 42 is not open in
view of the seventh Amendment to the Constitution relating to the power of acquisition and of the terms of Article 31B.
In T. Arul Nadar Vs. The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, , it is held that ''subsequent to final statement, if the holder acquires land
subsequently, it can be amended.
It is relevant to point out that the ingredients of Section 22 of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 indicates that
there ought to be a transfer or other alienation. Further, it must have taken place during the period specified in the Section. Moreover, it should
have the effect of defeating any of the provisions of the Act. If these three elements are present, the Authorised Officer ought to avoid transfer. The
aim of the Section is to prevent any alienation which defeats any of the provisions of the Act. An enquiry has to be conducted by the Authorised
Officer as per Section 22 of the Act to find out whether the transfers have been entered into only with a view to defeat the provisions of the Act
without bona fide intention to transfer the title by means of documents of transfer.
As a matter of fact, the Authorised Officer has to adhere to the mandatory procedure prescribed as per Section 22 of the Act. Indeed, Section
22 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 deals with sale, gift and the like substantial transactions.
As per Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, the transfers or sub-division made or effected
before the publication of notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 18 should be treated as if no such transfer had taken place and this Section
has the retrospective effect as per decision Venkatakrishna Naidu Vs. The Authorised Officer for the area of North Arcot, .
As per Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, the Authorised Officer has to take into
account only those members of family as are covered by the definition of Section 3(14) of the Act as per decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court
in M.K. Harihara Iyer Vs. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Tirunelveli, .
The Authorised Officer has power to decide questions of title as per Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 as
per decision N. Krishnaswamy v. Authorised Officer, Vellore (1967) 1 M.L.J. 179.
The opportunity visualised in Section 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 is only in respect of
cases where the party does not furnish any information as per Section 8 of the Act.
In B.E. Kaliyaperumal Nattar Vs. The Authorized Officer (Land Reforms), Tiruchirapalli, , it is held hereunder:
The direction in Section 23 of the Madras Act (LVIII of 1961), is to the Authorised Officer which is that, for the purpose of fixing, for the first
time, the ceiling area of any person holding land on the date of the commencement of the Act, in excess of 30 standard acres, he shall ignore any
transfer, whether by sale or by gift etc., effected on or after the notified and before the date of the publication of the final statement u/s 12 or 14. In
sharp contrast to Section 22, the Authorised Officer, while acting u/s 23, has not been given any power to declare such sale to be void. The
section also does not say that the transfer by itself will be bad for any reason. The transfer is not rendered void either expressly or by any statement
in the section. The section does not deal with the transferee''s rights.
Section 23 cannot be read or understood as conferring power upon the Authorised Officer to take land which has not vested in the Government as
provided under the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 18(3), and then distribute such land.
The approach to Section 23 should also be from the standpoint of the main objective of the legislation, namely, fixing a ceiling. Too much emphasis
cannot be given to distribution. The position u/s 23, as it is worded for the moment, may be anomalous and may even lead to difficult situations.
But that should be stand in the way of finding the true scope of Section 23 and the Court is not entitled to fill up gaps in Section 23 by visualising
strange situations in providing for them.
In the decision V. Govindaswamy and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, at page 93 in paragraph 7 & 8, it is observed as follows:
7.A conjoint reading of the above provisions of the Act clearly indicates that a family, which comes under the definition of a person referred to in
Section 5, which fixes the ceiling area, can hold a basic extent of the 15 standard acres plus five additional acres for every member of the family in
excess of 5 subject to the ceiling of 30 standard acres fixing u/s 5(5). In this case, there is no dispute that the Petitioners'' family consists of 9
members. Therefore, their family would be entitled to hold the maximum extent of 30 standard acres. According to Section 5(2), for purpose of
fixing the ceiling area of the family under that section., all the lands held individually by the members of the family shall be deemed to be held by the
family. As per this provision, the lands held by each of the Petitioners has to be clubbed together and treated as the holding of the family.
Admittedly the total extent held by both the Petitioners is only 22.15 standard acres and that is less than the maximum extent of 30 standard acres
which their family can hold as per Section. 5(5). The Authorised Officer has however. treated the wife''s holding as a separated unit and after
deducting 10 standard acres which she is entitled to hold as stridhanam, the balance has been treated as surplus in her hands.
We do not see how the second Petitioner who is admittedly a member of the family as per the definition of ''family'' in Section 3(14) can be
treated as separate unit for purpose of fixation of ceiling area u/s 5. Section 5(4) clearly provides that where the stridhana land held by any female
member of the family together with the other land held by the other members of the family is in excess of 15 standard acres, the female member
concerned may hold, in addition to the extent of the land which the family is entitled to hold under Sub-section (1), stridhana land not exceeding ten
standard acres. According to the proviso to Section 5(4)(a) where the stridhana land held by a female member is included in the extent of land
which the family is entitled to hold under Sub-section (1) and the extent of stridhana land so included is more than 10 standard acres, then the
female member is not entitled to hold any stridhana land in addition to the extent to included. In view of this provision the second Petitioner is not
entitled to claim any additional extent over and above the maximum ceiling area of 30 standard acres which the family is entitled to hold u/s 5(1).
But that does not mean that the second Petitioner can be separated from the family and her ceiling area can be fixed separately apart from that of
the family. In the light of the provisions set out above, it is not possible to say that the ceiling area of a female member should be fixed separately
merely because she holds land apart from the lands held by the other members of the family and thereby exclude her from the fold of the family.
Section 5(4) merely gives a concession to a female member of the family, and merely because a female member is entitled to that concession, she
cannot be treated as being separate from the family for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area of the family, as otherwise, it will lead to the absurd
result that whenever a stridhana land is held by a female member of a family whatever its extent may be, her holding will have to be treated
independently without reference to the family and such a position is not tenable on a reading of the provisions of the Act.
The 1st Respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal, in its common order, in S.R.P. Nos. 14 to 16 of 2000 dated 03.01.2001, in paragraph 9, has
observed that ''In as much as the notification u/s 18(1) of the Act was set aside earlier by the Land Commissioner in his earlier order dated
23.4.99 in R.P.3/99, these questions now raised before this Tribunal can be agitated and decided by the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms
at Erode (3rd Respondent in the Writ Petitions). Also, the 1st Respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal has opined that ''the question as to whether
the daughters Sundaralakshmi and Kamalaveni were not married prior to 6.4.60 and they were married subsequent to 6.4.60 is a matter to be
decided by the Authorised Officer of Land Reforms by letting in concrete and satisfactory evidence like marriage invitation cards and any other
acceptable document on this aspect. The production of the birth certificates or the birth extracts of Sundaralakshmi and Kamalaveni will not prove
the factum of marriage after 6.4.60. Therefore, the question whether they are married as on 6.4.60 or not is a matter to be agitated and decided by
the Authorised Officer of Land Reforms at Erode.'' 54. That apart, the 1st Respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal, in its common order in S.R.P.
Nos. 14 to 16 of 2000 dated 03.01.2001 in paragraph 10 to 12, has observed the following:
Similarly the question whether notices were served on all the heirs of the late Thirumalaisamy Naidu can be resolved by remanding the case to
the same Authorised Officer by directing the Authorised Officer to issue notices to all the legal heirs of Thirumalaisamy Naidu including the
Petitioners in these Revision Petitions by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due, and if the legal heirs of Thirumalaisamy Naidu or any one of
them refused to receive the same, then it must be taken that they have been served with notice. This matter is pending for more than 30 years. They
cannot prolong these proceedings by refusing to receive the notices and without putting forth their objections to the amendment to the final
statement to be published u/s 14 of the Act.
Likewise the Authorised Officer can consider the effect of the partition deed dated 2.12.59 and the rights that will flow under the said partition
deed dated 2.12.59 to the wife of Thirumalaisamy Naidu by name Rukmani is as much as it is claimed that the lands covered under the partition
deed dated 2.12.59 are ancestral properties of the landowner Thirumalaisami Naidu.
The Petitioners claimed that some dispute arose between the Petitioners and his brothers on one hand and their father and their credits on the
other hand, which ended in a compromise dated 27.11.76 made in O.S. No. 6/71 on the file of the Subordinate Judge''s Court at Erode, and
according to the Petitioners the status of the Petitioners was served in the year 1959 itself, and they no longer constituted a joint family after the
partition dated 2.12.59. If that is so, it does not stand to reason as to whey the compromise was entered into and a compromise decree was
passed in O.S. No. 6/71 on the file of the Subordinate Judge''s court at Erode on 27.11.76. This compromise decree dated 27.11.76 in O.S. No.
6/71 is a void one in the light of Sections 4 and 23 of the Act.
The 1st Respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal, on the basis of the ingredients of Section 4 of the Act (viz., Act to override other laws,
contracts, etc.) and in terms of Section 23 of the Act (dealing with transfers or sub-division made or effected before the publication of notification
under Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act), has, inter alia, observed that ''the concerned transfer or sub-division effected after the notified
dated i.e. after 2.10.1960 and before the publication of the notification u/s 18(1) is void, and the provisions of this Act shall have effected
notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any decree of the court like the compromise decree dated 27.11.76 in O.S. No. 6/71 on the file
of the subordinate Judge''s Court at Erode and so the compromise decree dated 27.11.76 in O.S. No. 6/71 is non est in the eye of law, and the
lands dealt with under the compromise decree dated 27.11.76 in O.S. No. 6/71 will continue to be the holdings of the land owner for the purpose
of this statute etc.
The 1st Respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal has finally set aside the orders of the Land Commissioner in R.P. Nos. 145 to 147 of 1998
dated 11.08.1999 and allowed S.R.P. Nos. 14 to 16 of 2000 besides remitting the matter to the 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer and the
Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) for fresh disposal in accordance with law, from the stage of Section 14 of the Act. Added further, the 3rd
Respondent/Authorised Officer and the Assistant Commissioner has been directed to proceed from the stage of the amendment to the final
statement as per Section 14 of the Act and then to issue the notification as per Section 18(1) of the Act after considering the objections of the legal
heirs of the land owner Thirumalaisamy Naidu and others.
The 1st Respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal has also directed issuance of notices to all the legal heirs of Thriumalaisamy Naidu and also to
the Petitioners in R.P. No. 3/99 and 20 to 30/99 by registered post with acknowledgement due, and if any of them refused to receive the same,
then it must be treated as sufficient service on them and to proceed with the matter accordingly and pass necessary amendment to the final
statement u/s 14 of the Act after due enquiry within six months from the date of the order.
Be that as it may, inasmuch as the 1st Respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal has allowed S.R.P. Nos. 14 to 16 of 2000 and has only remitted
the matter back to the 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer and the Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law from the
stage of Section 14 of the Act etc. and also directed to issue notice to all the legal heirs of Thirumalaisamy Naidu and also the Petitioners in R.P.
No. 3/99 and 20 to 30/99 by registered post with acknowledgement due etc., we are of the considered view that it is open to the Petitioners to
raise all factual and legal issues [including the production of necessary proof/evidence to establish the factum of marriage of Sundaralakshmi and
Kamalaveni on 6.4.60] before the 3rd Respondent/Authorised Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode District and in that
view of the matter, it cannot be said that irreparable loss and hardship will be caused to the Petitioners if the proceedings are allowed to be
continued and in fact, there is no violation of Principles of Natural Justice, since the 1st Respondent/ Special Appellate Tribunal has directed the
3rd Respondent to issue notices to all the legal heirs of Thirumalaisamy Naidu and also the Petitioners in R.P. No. 3/99 and 20 to 30/99 by
registered post with acknowledgement due etc. Looking at from any angle, the Writ Petitions filed by the Writ Petitioners are devoid of merits.
Resultantly, the Writ Petitions fail.
In the result, the Writ Petitions are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
also dismissed.