AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ismail, J.—This is a petition u/s 23 of the Tamil Nadu Land Ceiling Act, 1961, to revise the order of the Land Tribunal, Tuticorin, dated 7th
September, 1976, in C.M.A (L.T.) No. 9 of 1975. Three points were urged before me in support of the revision petition. The first one is that the
Tribunal was wrong in declining to grant exemption in respect of 35.03 acres of grazing land on the ground that Section 74 of the Act had been
omitted by Tamil Nadu Act XLI of 1971, since, according to the Petitioner, the position has to be decided with reference to the statutory
provisions before the amendment by Tamil Nadu Act XLI of 1971. The second contention is that the Tribunal had not properly dealt with the
claim for exemption of those made by the Petitioner u/s 73(vii) of the Act. The third contention is that the third Respondent herein was married
between the date of the commencement of the Act, namely 6th April, 1960 and the notified date, namely 2nd October, 1962 and, therefore, her
share should not be included in the land held by the family in ascertaining to the ceiling.
Let me consider these points in that order. As far as the first point is concerned, the Tribunal dealt with it in paragraph 5 of its order. The
Tribunal states that the Petitioner claimed exemption to the extent of 35.03 acres u/s 74 of the Land Ceiling Act on the ground that they were only
used as grazing ground. But the Authorised Officer held on inspection that it was not proved that these lands have been used for the purpose of
grazing on 6th January, 1960 the date of commencement of the Act, and no exemption could be granted u/s 74. The Tribunal itself has not
expressed any opinion of its own on this finding of the Authorised Officer, but merely proceeded to state:
It is now conceded that Section 74 itself has been omitted from the Act by way of subsequent amendment. Therefore the claim for exemption
under this provision no more arises for consideration.
I am of the opinion that the Tribunal is right in this behalf, Section 74 as it originally stood read as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if any person has, on the date of the commencement of this Act, held land used exclusively for
grazing and assessed to land revenue at Rs. 1.25 and below per acre, he shall be entitled to hold such grazing land, upto an extent off fifty acres in
addition to the ceiling area.
Section 3(11) of the Tamil Nadu Act XLI of 1971 provided:
Sections 74 and 75 of the principal Act had been omitted.
The question for consideration is what is the effect of this omission of Section 74. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, since the
present proceedings were initiated before the amendment of the Act under Tamil Nadu Act XLI of 1971, the Tribunal ought not to take into
account the omission of Section 74 and should have applied Section 74 of the Act, to the Petitioner. On the other hand, the learned additional
Government Pleader contends that since the authorised officer passed the order in question after coming into force of Tamil Nadu Act XLI of
1971, the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 74. I am of the opinion that neither of these contentions is sound. Once Section 74 had
been deleted from the statute book, the result will be, whether proceedings were initiated earlier or later, or, whether the order was passed before
or subsequently, a person will not be entitled to hold the grazing land provided for u/s 74 in addition to the ceiling area. Consequently, the moment
Section 74 was taken out of the statute book even, if the proceedings had already come to an end under the unamended Act, the person, who is
entitled to hold the land u/s 74 in addition to ceiling area, will have to part with the land. Consequently, the Tribunal is right in this behalf in holding
that in view of the omission of Section 74 , the Petitioner would not be entitled to any relief on this count.
As far as the second point is concerned, the same has been dealt with in paragraph 6 of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has referred to
the treatment of this claim by the authorised officer and agreed with the same. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Tribunal
bad appointed a Commissioner and that Commissioner had submitted a report and the Tribunal had not referred to the report of the Commissioner
at all in its order. I am of the opinion that this is beside the point. The Tribunal pointed out that the authorised Officer had dealt with this question in
annexure B of his order and annexure B itself referred to annexure K to the draft statement where the authorised Officer has dealt with the case.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner was not able to draw my attention to annexure K to the draft statement to show whether the authorised
officer had committed any error in respect of the claim made by the Petitioner u/s 73(vii) of the Act. In view of this, no interference is called for
with the order of the Tribunal in this behalf.
The third point is dealt with in paragraph 7 of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal simply stated that, because of the definition of family in
Section 3(14) of the Act, the authorised officer rightly rejected the claim of the Petitioner that the share of the third Respondent who was married
between the date of commencement of the Act and the notified date, is erroneous in view of the decision of this Court in Rajagopal v. State this
Court has held that when an unmarried daughter is married after the dale of the commencement of the Act and before the notified date, her share
should be excluded in fixing the family ceiling area. In view of the decision of this Court, the Tribunal has committed an error in this behalf.
The Civil revision petition is allowed in part to the extent of the claim made by the Petitioner for exclusion of the share of the third Respondent in
this petition and the authorities below will have to refix the selling on the basis, that the shares of the third Respondent has to be excluded. The Civil
revision petition is ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.