R. Raghavan and Another vs The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) and Another

Varadarajan, J.—These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are for the issue of writs of certiorari or any other

appropriate writs or orders calling for the records from the second Respondent, the Land Commissioner, Board of Revenue (Land Reforms)

Madras in RP.F2-178-179 of 1974 (Land Reforms), dated 29th July, 1976 and quashing the same.

The Petitioners are brothers owning lands in different, taluks in Tirunelveli district. When proceedings were taken under the Land Ceiling Act,

the Petitioners filed their returns and claimed exemption in respect of their 1/5th share each in 53.33 ordinary acres in Pudur Pandiapuram Village

viz.:

4.39 acres in S. No. 69 part.

2.93 acres in S. No. 67/2 part.

1.51 acres in S. No. 67/3 part.

2.03 acres in S. No. 68/3.

55 cents in S. No. 112/2 part.

32.38 acres in S. No. 111/1 part.

2.88 acres in S. No. 61/5 part.

2.42 acres in S. No. 110/1 part.

2.40 acres in S. No. 110/2 part.

1.84 acres in S. No. 110/3 part.

The first Respondent, the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli held that whatever lands in respect of which exemption could be

granted to the Petitioners had been exempted already and that there was no evidence to show that the aforesaid lands are uncultivable. In this

view, he declined the exemption asked for by the Petitioners. The draft statement was confirmed and the final statement was made on 9th October,

1973 and served on the Petitioners on 3rd November, 1973. The Petitioners filed revision petitions Nos. 178 of 1974 and 179 of 1974 before the

2nd Respondent, the Land Commissioner, who has dismissed them by a common order observing:

The District Agricultural Officer had, after inspection, reported in his letter C.D. Dis. 17359/74, dated 12th November, 1974 that there were

babul trees, prosopis and other thorny shrubs on the land that these lands could be put to use for growing of fuel trees and if the lands are

reclaimed by spending about Rs. 1,000/- they can be used for raising dry crops. Therefore, the lands contain only spontaneous natural growth of

thorny shrubs, babul and prosopis trees and therefore, cannot qualify for exemption u/s 73(viii) which requires that the lands should be used

exclusively for growing fuel trees. Natural growth of vegetation will not be for growing fuel trees. The lands are agricultural lands, being cultivable

and not in actual non-agricultural use on the date of commencement of the Act.

In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions it is stated that the report of the Sub-Collector, Kovilpatti which is said to be in favour of the

writ Petitioners obviously has not been referred to or considered by the 2nd Respondent and that even though evidence of exemption of similar

adjoining lands were directed to be produced by the 2nd Respondent and were actually produced by the Petitioners, they have not been referred

to at all in the second Respondent''s order. It is further alleged in the affidavits that the Petitioners had, at the request of the Government, raised

cashew crops under the Cashew Extension Programme on a loan given by the Government itself but as the lands were saline and the sub soil water

was saltish, the cashew plants withered away and the entire programme was a failure and that the Authorised Officer was probably misled by the

fact that the revenue records contained an entry in the particular year that the cashew crop which was attempted to be raised was standing. Thus,

according to the Petitioners, the lands are fit only for raising fuel trees and are liable to be exempted.

The writ petitions are opposed and it is contended by the Respondents that as the lands contain only spontaneous natural growth of thorny

shrubs, babul and prosopis trees they cannot qualify for exemption u/s 73(viii) which requires that fie lands should be used exclusively for growing

fuel trees. Natural growth of vegetation cannot be taken as use for growing fuel trees. Waste lands containing trees and shrubs are forest lands

according to Section 3(15) and lands u/s 3(22) include forest lands and therefore, these lands do not qualify for exemption u/s 73(viii) of the Tamil

Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961.

According to Section 3(15) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, forest land includes any waste-land

containing trees on shrubs. According to Section 3(22), land means agricultural land, that is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for

agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto and includes forest land, pasture land, plantation and tope, but does not include house-site or

land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes. u/s 73(viii) of the Act, except as otherwise provided in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 5

and in Section 6, nothing contained in the Act shall apply to any land used exclusively for growing fuel trees on 15th February 1970, provided that

such land shall be exempt only so long as such land is used for such purpose.

The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Koilpatti has reported to the Board of Revenue by his letter dated 1st May, 1975 that he inspected the

lands on 11th April, 1975 alongwith the Karnam of the village and the representative of the land holder and found that the lands form part of a

compact block situated close to each other and all these lands are classified as Manavari in the Revenue Accounts, that the entire area is waste

without any cultivation, that there are prosopis trees and thorny bushes throughout the entire area except three young palmyrah trees in Survey No.

67/3, that there is no cultivation at all in the area during the past three decades as deposed by the Village Karnam who has been in service for 30

years and there is no cultivation except to the extent of 30 acres in survey No. 111/1 where cashew cultivation is said to have been raised in Fasli,

1380, that the crops did not thrive due to the saltish nature of the soil as seen from the statement of the karnam of the village and that the entire

land is quite nearer to the sea within a distance of 3 miles on the eastern direction and the water below the soil is saltish. The Authorised Officer

further reported that the reclamation of the land by spending Rs. 1,000/- per acre for the entire area as estimated by the District Agricultural

Officer is quite impossible as the clearance of the thorny bushes and prosopis trees will be an uphill task. The Authorised Officer has stated that in

other words, the area can be best suited for raising fuel trees. The Authorised officer has stated in another letter dated 17th June, 1975 addressed

to the Board of Revenue that there hasten definitely no demand in the locality for assignment and the lands in question are to be excluded u/s 3(22)

of the Act and they are not fit for cultivation for the reasons stated by him in his report, dated 29th April, 1975 which has been signed by him on

1st May, 1975. The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli in his letter, dated 17th May, 1976 addressed to the Board of Revenue, has stated that

the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Koilpatti has reported that the lands in question are not fit for cultivation as the water below is saline and

that the entire lands which are full of prosopis trees and thorny bushes except three young palmyrah trees are fit only for growing fuel trees. He has

further stated in that letter that the Sub-collector Koilpatti has also remarked after inspecting these lands that the lands in question will not be useful

for any public purposes as they are not located near any village habitation and that the lands are not fit for cultivation for irrigated crops since the

water in the area is saline and that in those circumstances there is no demand in the locality for any public purpose.

Having regard to the reports of the Authorised Officer and the Sub-Collector, Koilpatti. the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli is of the

opinion that these lands are undoubtedly not fit for cultivation as the soil and the water is saline and the lands have not been cultivated for the last

over 30 years and are fit only for growing fuel trees. The fact that the fuel trees are found to be growing naturally, cannot be a circumstance to state

that the lands are not being used for raising fuel trees. Therefore, lam of the opinion that Section 73(viii) of the Act is attracted and the Petitioners

are entitled to the exemption prayed for so long as these lands are used only for the purpose of growing fuel trees. These writ petitions are allowed.

The parties will bear their respective costs.