AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Venugopal, J.—The petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 have preferred this writ petition as against the order dated 01.08.2001 in S.R.P. No.
15 of 1999 passed by the third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal and to quash the same.
The third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal, while passing orders in S.R.P. No. 15 of 1999 on 01.08.2001, has, inter alia, held that ''the
lands held by Chinnammal by virtue of settlement deed dated 22.7.59 and registered as document No. 2157/59 in Survey Nos. 60, 75/1, 75/3,
69/8 and 62/1 of Alasanthapuram village have to be excluded from the holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder, and in all other respects
have rejected the objections and contentions raised by the writ petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 and has further directed the Authorised Officer of
Land Reforms at Villupuram to issue notices individually to the petitioners/ respondents 3 to 5 and after hearing them for suggesting the surplus
lands as required u/s 10(4) of the Act, the Authorised Officer of the Land Reforms at Villupuram has been directed to publish a revised draft
statement u/s 10(5) of the Act and to proceed further in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and resultantly, allowed the Special
Revision Petition in part and set aside the judgment of the second respondent/Land Tribunal, Thanjavur dated 11.12.97 in LTCMA. No.
28/1997.''
The learned Counsel for the petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 submits that the first petitioner/third respondent''s grandfather Hanumantharaya
Gounder (deceased) owned agricultural lands to an extent of 188.80 ordinary acres equivalent to 55.969 standard acres in the Villages of
Alasanthapuram, Simukampattu and Narayanapuram in Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District and during his life time, he settled an extent of 16.58
ordinary acres of land situated at Alasanthapuram Village by means of a settlement deed dated 22.7.1959 in favour of his mother Chinnammal
which is a registered document bearing No. 2157/59 at the office of Sub-Registrar, Vaniyambadi and further on the same day, he settled another
extent of 10.77 ary acres of land situated at Narayanapuram in her favour and in favour of the second petitioner/fourth respondent absolutely with
mother Rathinammal as Guardian and added further, the grandfather of the first petitioner/third respondent has settled an extent of 113.83 ary
acres of lands situated at Simukampattu village in favour of her father Maikanna Gounder and her mother Rathinammal by means of registered
settlement deed dated 22.7.1959 giving them right of possession and enjoyment of the said lands for their life time without any power of alienation
with a further condition after the life time the said lands should be equally shared by the petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 and also that her grandfather
Hanumantharaya Gounder retained an extent of 47.67 ary acres of lands situated at Alasanthapuram out of the total extent owned by him and
continuing further, the first petitioner/third respondent''s grandfather expired on 01.06.1964 leaving behind him his wife Nagammal and his daughter
Rathinammal as legal heirs and as such, her grandmother Nagammal and mother Rathinammal have succeeded to the extent of 47.67 ary acres
retained by her grandfather Hanumantharaya Gounder and in an extent of 113.83 acres settled in favour of her father and mother consisted of fruit
bearing trees planted before 1959 and the first respondent commenced proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on
Land) Act, 1961 against her grandfather Maikanna Gounder as if he was the owner of an entire extent of 188.80 ordinary acres equivalent to
55.969 standard acres as on 15.2.1970 and her grandfather has been called upon to attend an enquiry on 04.12.1992 and in the enquiry he
appraised that only an extent of 113.80 ordinary acres of lands were settled both in his favour and his wife and that they had the life interest only in
the aforesaid lands and the first respondent/Authorised Officer was informed about the lands retained by the grandfather and the factum of his
death on 01.06.1964 and he was called upon to file Form No. 2 by 14.12.1992 and he could not file the form as he suffered heart attack apart
from the fact that he was a chronic diabetic patient and therefore, it was not correct to state that he refused to receive the notices sent by the
Authorised Officer and even the endorsements of the postal authorities stated that her father had not come and received the notice and as a matter
of fact, the report of Special Revenue Inspector was not correct since he never gave any intimation in this regard.
Further, it is the stand of the petitioners/ respondents 3 to 5 that the first petitioner/third respondent''s father was suffering from heart ailment and
therefore, he could not attend the enquiry on 24.6.1994 and was admitted in Aiyisha Hospital on 28.6.1994 and was discharged on 05.7.1994
and since he was advised bed rest, he could not attend the enquiry held on 13.7.1994 and the said absence was neither wilful nor wanton nor
deliberate and in short, the order passed by the Authorised Officer as per Section 9(2)(b) of the Act by its proceedings dated 2.9.1994 coming to
the conclusion that the first petitioner/ third respondent''s father owned excess lands of 40.969 acres was purely based upon the presumption and
there were no materials to show that the Authorised Officer complied with the provisions of Section 9(2)(a) of the Act and the Rule in collecting
information and indeed, the first petitioner/ third respondent''s father finally contacted his lawyer at Chennai in December 1995 who filed revision
petition u/s 82 of the Act before the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Madras, under the impression that an order was passed as per Section 9(3)
of the Act and this mistake was pointed out by the Office of the Commissioner of Land Reforms but the said office had not returned the papers
and due to cardiac failure, the first petitioner/third respondent''s father expired and subsequently, her mother Rathinammal filed an appeal in
LTCMA. No. 28 of 1997 before the Land Tribunal (District Revenue Officer), Thanjavur raising several grounds and the Land Tribunal, as an
Appellate Authority, on 11.12.1997, allowed the appeal by holding that there was no reason for continuation of the land proceedings in the present
case without taking into consideration the lands eligible for exemption and the Land Tribunal appreciated the fact that the first petitioner/third
respondent''s father Maikanna Gounder was not only the life estate holder, but the mother Rathinammal also had equal right with him as per the
settlement deed and moreover, the Land Tribunal also considered the fact that the lands settled by Hanumantharaya Gounder (deceased) in favour
of his mother Chinnammal, first petitioner/third respondent and the second petitioner/fourth respondent and also the extent retained by the said
Hanumantharaya Gounder which could not be considered as coming within the holding of first petitioner/third respondent''s father and the Land
Tribunal referred to the fact that an extent of 154 acres ought to have been exempted as per Section 73 and 3(22) of the Act since they were fruit
bearing trees and other varieties planted before 1959 and in this regard, the Land Tribunal placed reliance on the report of the Special Deputy
Tahsildar who inspected the lands.
Apart from the above, dissatisfied with the order of the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur, the Principal Commissioner and the Commissioner of Land
Reforms authorised the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram to file a special revision petition as per Section 83 of the Act before
the third respondent/ Special Appellate Land Tribunal and the revision was taken on file as S.R.P. No. 15 of 1999 after condoning the delay and
during the pendency of the said revision petition, the writ petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 were brought on record at the behest of the first
respondent based on the settlement deed executed in favour of the first petitioner/third respondent and the second petitioner/fourth respondent and
later, the mother of the petitioners 1 and 2 expired on 01.5.2001 and therefore, the petitioners/ respondents 3 to 5 were brought on record as legal
representatives and later the third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal had allowed the revision to the extent pertaining to the lands settled in
favour of Chinnammal as per the settlement deed dated 22.7.1959 except the land in Survey No. 60 in the aforesaid document and in other
aspects, rejected the same.
The specific stand of the writ petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 is that the Authorised Officer/first respondent, as per Rule 9 of the Land Reforms
Rules, 1962, must obtain necessary information as per manner prescribed but the Authorised Officer/first respondent recorded the statement of
Village Administrative Officer and came to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 was not established and the
Authorised Officer/first respondent should have seen that lands comprised in Survey No. 69/4 were set apart for ''Samadhi'' and that the land
comprised in Survey No. 69/8 was unfit for cultivation and that the land comprised in Survey No. 71/3 was a house site and not an agricultural
land. The Appellate Tribunal elaborately dealt with these aspects and held that these lands should have been excluded from the holdings. But, the
third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal came to a wrong conclusion that the claim of the petitioners was not established and as a matter of
fact, the third respondent/Tribunal had not appreciated the fact that Narayanapuram is situated contiguous to Alasanthapuram and that lands settled
in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 formed part of the entire extent of 188.80 acres and this conclusion is an error apparent on the face of record
which needs to be corrected and therefore, prays for allowing the writ petition to promote substantial cause of justice.
It is to be pointed out that the first respondent/Authorised Officer and Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram, by his order dated
02.9.1994, has stated that Maikanna Gounder, son of Lakshmana Gounder residing at Alasanthapuram Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk of North
Arcot Ambedkar District has come under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 as amended by
Tamil Nadu Act No. 17 of 1970 and the detailed enquiry has revealed that he holds the lands at Alasanthapuram and Simukampattu Villages to an
extent of 188.80 ordinary acres equivalent to 55.969 standard acres as on 15.2.1970 and that the land owner attended enquiry and deposed that
the properties were settled by his father-in-law through settlement and that his father-in-law died in the year 1964 and that his mother-in-law pre-
deceased him during the year 1994.
However, the land owner had not produced the original settlement deed of his father-in-law and as on 15.2.1970 the total number of the
owner''s family was only 5 and that the said Maikanna Gounder though promised to produce the return in Form-2 on 14.12.92 has neither turned
up for enquiry nor he filed the return in Form No. 2 as required under the Act and moreover, a final opportunity by means of the notice dated
11.1.1993 was issued to the said land owner, who refused to receive the registered post letter and that the said registered letter was sent ""returned
undelivered"" and another intimation letter dated 27.4.1995 was sent through Special Revenue Inspector (Land Reforms) of Vellore for causing
service and the Special Revenue Inspector in his N.Dis 52/93 dated 15.5.93 had reported that the land owner refused to receive the intimation
sent for enquiry and thereafter, several notices dated 6.8.93, 17.2.94, 7.3.94 and 22.4.94 were sent through registered post but the same were
returned and finally a notice in Form No. 4 was issued to the land owner as per Section 9(1) of the Act and the land owner was directed to attend
the enquiry on 6.6.94 at Villupuram and since the land owner, by his letter dated 3.6.94, informed that he could not attend the enquiry at
Villupuram due to ill health and requested for adjournment and to post the further enquiry at Vaniyambadi and even though the enquiry was
adjourned to 24.6.94 at Vaniyambadi, he had not attended the enquiry and sent intimation that due to ill health he could not attend the enquiry at
Vaniyambadi and requested for adjournment and again the enquiry was posted to 13.7.94 and intimation sent through registered post was not
received by the land owner. Even on 13.7.94 the land owner did not turn up for the enquiry at Vaniyambadi and the Village Administrative Officer
of Alasanthapuram village appeared on 13.7.94 at Vaniyambadi and stated that the land owner had got an extent of 188.80 acres of land at
Alasanthapuram and Simakampattu villages. As the land owner was evading appearance to attend the enquiry, as seen from the material records it
was presumed that he had no objection to the information furnished in the notice in From No. 4 served on 18.6.94 and accordingly, the total
holding of the land owner (Maikanna Gounder) was determined as below:
Extent
Ord. Acres Std. Acres
Holding of the land owner 188.80 55.969
ii) Ceiling area
admissible 15.000
---------------------------------------------------
surplus 40.969
---------------------------------------------------
and as such, he was requested to furnish a list of surplus land to an extent of 40.969 standard acres within 15 days from the date of receipt of the
order failing which the surplus lands would be selected suo-motu as per Section 10(3) of the Act and draft statement as per Section 18(1) of the
Act would be issued thereto.
As against the order passed by the first respondent/ Authorised Officer, the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) dated 2.9.94 the said
Rathinammal wife of Maikanna Gounder (deceased) has preferred an appeal in No. 28 of 1997 before the second respondent/Land Tribunal and
that the said appeal was allowed on 11.12.1997 by the second respondent/Land Tribunal inter alia holding that ''there were five families (units)
existing as on 15.2.70, the date of commencement of the Act, and due shares shall be allotted to them and the total extent available in this case
was 55.96 standard acres only and subsequently the order of the first respondent/ Authorised Officer dated 02.9.1997 was set aside.
The second respondent/Land Tribunal, while passing orders in Appeal No. 28 of 1997, had observed that Hanumantharaya Gounder, the
original land owner, had two grand daughters as on 1959 at the time of settlement. But, after four years another daughter was born to
Mrs.Rathinammal, the daughter of said Hanumantharaya Gounder and he made a provision for her in the settlement deed as per document No.
2161/59 and as per the settlement, the settlees were given life time enjoyment and the properties shall devolve upon the children born to them and
to the legal heirs as per law and the grand daughters partitioned the properties mentioned in the settlement deed and further, the said
Hanumantharaya Gounder expired in the year 1964 and retained an extent of 47.67 acres of land for himself and settled 16.58 acres of land in
favour of his mother and this extent shall be clubbed with their retained portions of Hanumantharaya Gounder and at the time of his death, the
Hanumantharaya Gounder held an extent of 64.25 acres of land and this extent shall be divided among the surviving legal heirs and he had left
behind daughter Mrs.Rathinammal and his wife Mrs. Nagammal. But they were not provided with any properties even though Mrs.Rathinammal
was given life estate as per the document No. 2161/59 settlement deed and moreover, Hanumantharaya Gounder''s wife was not at all allotted any
property in any one of the settlement deeds and therefore, the properties available with Hanumantharaya Gounder shall be divided between his
wife Nagammal and Rathinammal and Nagammal died in the year 1984 and both of them were alive on the date of commencement of the Act and
they ought to be treated as individual units but the first respondent/Authorised Officer clubbed the entire extent into one and initiated proceedings
against Maikanna Gounder who was not at all given any absolute ownership over the property as per the settlement deed 2161/59 and apart from
the above, an extent of 40.75 acres of land mentioned in patta No. 60 in Alahanthapuram village stood in the name of Nagammal and the said
Nagammal sold the lands by means of registered documents and when the patta stood in the name of Nagammal her name was left out and her
holdings were clubbed and the land ceiling proceedings were initiated against Maikanna Gounder, who was neither a legal heir nor an absolute
owner of the land and this action of the first respondent/Authorised Officer was not correct and Rathinammal was the legal heir of the
Hanumantharaya Gounder and in her name patta No. 114 of Alasanthapuram village stood in respect of some of the lands and therefore,
Nagammal and Rathinammal should be treated as separate units and equal shares should be allotted to them.
It is to be noticed that the Principal Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai by his proceedings in Ref. No.
H1/984/98 (L) Reference dated..10.98 has authorised the first respondent/Authorised Officer and Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms),
Villupuram to file a Special Revision Petition u/s 83 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 as amended before
the third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai as against the order of the second respondent/Land Tribunal, Thanjavur passed in
LTCMA. No. 28 of 1997 dated 11.12.1997. It also transpires that the first respondent/Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) has filed M.P. No.
143 of 1998 to condone the delay of 166 days in preferring the Special Revision Petition against the orders dated 11.2.1997 of the second
respondent/Land Tribunal made in LTCMA. No. 28 of 1997 and the third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal has condoned the said delay of
166 days and allowed M.P. No. 143 of 1998 and further directed to number the main revision petition, if it is in order and post the same for
hearing on 28.4.1999.
In the Special Revision Petition No. 15 of 1999 filed by the first respondent/Authorised officer and Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms),
the third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal has framed as many as 8 points for determination and they are as follows:
Whether the second respondent herein by name Rathinammal and her husband Maikanna Gounder have got only the right of enjoyment in the
lands settled by Hanumantharaya Gounder under the settlement deed dated 22.7.59 registered as Document No. 2161 of 1959 and whether the
said lands covered by this settlement deed dated 22.7.59 registered as Document No. 2161/59 cannot be taken as the land held by the landowner
Maikanna Gounder as he was only a limited owner or a life estate holder and whether therefore the lands covered by this settlement deed dated
22.7.59 cannot be taken into account for the purpose of fixing the ceiling and determining the surplus land of the landowner Maikanna Gounder?
Whether the lands covered by the settlement deed dated 22.7.59 executed by Hanumantharaya Gounder in favour of one Chinnammal and
registered as Document No. 2157/1959 have been included in the holdings of the landowner Maikanna Gounder and whether the lands covered
by the settlement deed dated 22.7.59 registered as Document No. 2157 of 1959 have to be excluded from the holdings of the landowner
Maikanna Gounder?
Whether the land in Survey No. 69/4 of Alasanthapuram village is a ""samathi"" and whether the said land should be excluded from the holdings of
the landowner Maikanna Gounder?
Whether the land in Survey No. 69/8 of Alasanthapuram village is unfit for cultivation and whether it has to be excluded from the holdings of the
landowner Maikanna Gounder?
Whether the land in Survey No. 71/3 of Alasanthapuram village is a house site and whether it has to be excluded from the holdings of the
landowner Maikanna Gounder?
Whether the lands in Survey Nos. 27/1, 20/1, 20/2, 48/2, 20/3A, 47/2A and 48/4 belonged to Vijayalakshmi and Jayalakshmi by virtue of a
settlement deed dated 22.7.59 executed by Hanumantharaya Gounder and registered as Document No. 2155 of 1959 and whether the
Authorised Officer of Land Reforms at Villupuram erred in including these items in the holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder?
Whether the land in Survey Nos. 3/2 of Alasanthapuram village is a mango thope and whether the lands in Survey Nos. 27/1, 8/3, 31 4/1, 25,
16/2, 26 and 33 of Alasanthapuram village are coconut thopes and whether the lands in Survey No. 75/3 of Alasanthapuram village are mango,
palmyra and tamarind thopes and whether as such these items should be exempted u/s 73(vii) of the Act?
To what relief is the petitioner entitled?
In regard to Point No. 2 the third respondent/Tribunal has observed that on a perusal of the settlement deed, registered as document No.
2157/59 it finds that Hanumantharaya Gounder has settled the lands in Survey No. 75/3, measuring 2.34 acres, Survey No. 75/3 measuring 3.97
acres, Survey No. 69/8 measuring 3.06 acres, Survey No. 62/1 measuring 5.90 acres and Survey No. 60 measuring 1.31 acres and that the first
respondent/Authorised Officer has included Survey No. 75/1 measuring 2.35 acres in the retainable holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder
and likewise, the land in Survey No. 75/3 measuring 3.96 acres has been included in the retainable holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder
and the land in Survey No. 69/8, measuring 3.08 acres has been shown as the surplus land of the land owner and moreover, the land in Survey
No. 62/1 measuring a total extent of 5.90 acres has been split up into two portions and one measuring 2.57 in Survey No. 62/1 has been shown in
the retainable holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder and the other portion measuring 3.35 acres in Survey No. 62/1 has been shown in
the surplus holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder and that the land in the Survey No. 60 measuring 1.31 acres has not at all been included
in any one of the holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder and ultimately the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that except the land in
Survey No. 60 all the remaining lands in Survey No. 75/1 measuring 2.35, Survey No. 75/3 measuring 3.06 acres, Survey No. 69/8 measuring
3.08 acres and Survey No. 62/1 measuring a total extent of 5.90 acres of Alasanthapuram Village have to be excluded from the holdings of the
land owner Maikanna Gounder as these lands belonged to Chinnammal, and the first respondent/Authorised Officer has been directed to exclude
these lands from the holdings of the land owner.
As regards the Point No. 3, the third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal has observed that ''nowhere in the adangal extract it is stated that
there is a ''Samathi'' in Survey No. 69/4 and from the adangal extract it is seen that agricultural crops like paddy and sugarcane have been raised in
Survey No. 69/4 of Alasanthapuram village and therefore, it has come to the definite conclusion that land in Survey No. 69/4 of Alasanthapuram is
not a ''Samathi'' but it is only an agricultural land and the land in Survey No. 69/4 measuring an extent of 6.82 acres of Alasanthapuram village
cannot be excluded on the ground that it is a ''Samathi''.
Coming to the Point No. 4, the third respondent/Tribunal has observed that ''in the adangal extract for fasli 1404 corresponding to the English
year, crops like sugarcane and paddy have been raised in Survey No. 69.8 measuring 3.08 acres and therefore, it has held that the land in Survey
No. 69/8 of Alasanthapuram village is unfit for cultivation and it has to be included in the holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder.
The third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal, while answering Point No. 5 has observed that ''not a scrap of paper has been placed by the
petitioners/3 to 5 respondents and the second respondent Rathinammal (deceased) to show that the land in Survey No. 71/3 measuring 48 cents is
entirely a house site but from the chitta extract it is seen that the land in Survey No. 71/3 is mentioned as ''Pungai'' land and resultantly, it has held
that the land in Survey No. 71/3 of Alasanthapuram village is not a house site, and it cannot be excluded as per Section 3(22) of the Act from the
holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder.
In answering the Point No. 6 the third respondent/ Special Appellate Tribunal has held that the lands bearing Survey No. 20/1 measuring 1.12
acres, Survey No. 20/2 measuring 0.72 acres, Survey No. 25/3 measuring 1.14 acres and Survey No. 47/2 measuring 2.65 acres totalling an
extent of 5 acres 63 cents were alone settled by Hanumantharaya Gounder in favour of his grand daughters Vijayalakshmi and Jayalakshmi under
the settlement deed dated 22.7.1959 and these lands in four items were not at all included in the holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder by
the first respondent/Authorised Officer and accordingly granted no relief to the petitioners/respondents 3 to 5.
In regard to the Point No. 7, the third respondent/ Tribunal has held that the burden is squarely upon the petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 to
establish the fact that the lands were converted before 1.7.59 into thopes and they were continued as such till the date of exemption asked for
before the land Tribunal at Thanjavur in the appeal in LTCMA. No. 28 of 1997. It is to be pointed out that in order to derive the benefit conferred
by Section 73(VII) of the Act, the applicant must not only prove that the land in respect of which exemption is sought for was converted on or
before 1.7.59 into an Orchard or Thope or Arecanut Garden, but that he must further exhibit that from the date of conversion, the said land has
continued to be maintained as an Orchard, Thope or Arecanut Garden till such time the exemption is asked for as per decision State of Madras v.
Ramani Iyer 1975 Mad 26. In the instant case, no material was produced before the second respondent/Land Tribunal at Thanjavur or before the
first respondent/Authorised Officer or before the third respondent to show that these lands were converted into Thopes as on 1.7.1959 and
continued to be maintained as Thopes and till such time the exemption was asked for and even adangal extracts from the year 1959 were not
produced to show that these lands were converted into Thopes as on 1.7.1959 and continued to be maintained as Thopes and resultantly,
negatived the plea that these lands are to be given the exemption u/s 73(vii) of the Act.
In regard to Point No. 1, the third respondent/ Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the land owner Maikanna Gounder and his wife
Rathinammal have got only the right of enjoyment in the lands settled by Hanumantharaya Gounder as per settlement deed dated 22.7.1959 and
the lands covered by the settlement deed dated 22.7.1959 must be taken into account as the lands held by the land owner Maikanna Gounder
even though Maikanna Gounder and his wife Rathinammal were limited owners or life estate holders and as such the lands covered by the
settlement deed dated 22.7.1959 must be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the ceiling and determining the surplus land of the land
owner Maikanna Gounder and thus answered against the petitioners. Also the third respondent/Tribunal has held that the Officer of the Land
Tribunal at Thanjavur has committed an illegality by stating that patta stood in the name of Nagammal and Rathinammal and so they were five
families in this case and there is only one family viz., the family of Maikanna Gounder and his holdings have to be determined and for the entire
proceedings Maikanna Gounder was treated as the land owner and his agricultural holdings alone have to be determined and for the entire
proceedings Maikanna Gounder was treated as land owner and agricultural holdings have to be determined and as such the findings of the officer
of the Land Tribunal at Thanjavur cannot be sustained on this aspect of the family and the patta stood in the names of Nagammal and Rathinammal
have to be set aside and further that the first respondent/Authorised Officer is directed to issue notices individually to the petitioners/respondents 3
to 5 and after hearing them for suggesting the surplus lands as required u/s 10(4) of the Act, is directed to publish a revised draft statement u/s
10(5) of the Act and proceed further in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
It is the stand of the petitioners that the lands held by Maikanna Gounder and Rathinammal though as limited owner has to be taken into
account because of the definition of ''Family'' u/s 3(14) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 and also by
means of the definition of ''Owner'' in Section 3(33) and as per definition of ''Limited Owner'' in Section 3(28) of the Act.
It is useful to refer Section 3(14) of the Act, which speaks of ''Family'' in relation to a person which means the person, the wife or husband, as
the case may be, of such person and his or her - (i) minor sons and unmarried daughters, and (ii)minor grand-sons and unmarried grand-daughters
in the male line, whose father and mother are dead etc. Also Section 3(33) of the Act defines ''Owner'' which runs as follows:
(a) means:
(i) any person holding land in severalty or jointly or in common under a ryotwari settlement or in any way subject to the payment of revenue direct
to the Government, or
(ii) a land holder as defined in the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1908), or a ryot as defined in that Act, or
(iii) an inamdar not being a landholder defined as aforesaid, and
(b)includes:
(i) full owner or limited owner, or
(ii) the lessee of any lease-hold village or his heirs, assignees, legal representatives or persons deriving rights through him;
Moreover, Section 3(28) of the Act speaks of ""Limited Owner"" which runs thus:
''limited owner'' means any person entitled to a life estate in any land and includes persons deriving rights through him;
Explanation.- A person who has a right to enjoy the land during his lifetime shall be deemed to be a limited owner notwithstanding that he has no
power to alienate the land:
In the case on hand, Hanumantharaya Gounder expired on 01.6.1964 leaving behind him Nagammal (wife) and Rathinammal (only daughter).
The said daughter Rathinammal got married to Maikanna Gounder. Nagammal also expired on 10.12.84. On 22.12.95 the said Maikanna
Gounder expired and he left behind him Rathinammal (wife) and 3 daughters viz., writ petitioners/ respondents 3 to 5. On 15.2.1970, the date of
commencement of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, Maikanna Gounder''s family comprised of himself, wife
Rathinammal and three unmarried daughters and in all five members and therefore, the ceiling for Maikanna Gounder''s family (land owner) is 15
standard acres. By means of the registered Settlement Deed dated 22.7.59, Maikanna Gounder and his wife possessed only the life estate and
their interests in the land under the settlement deed dated 22.7.59 will have to be included in the land owner Maikanna Gounder''s holdings as per
the definition of ''family'', ''owner'' and ''limited owner'' enjoined under the Act as per Sections 3(14), 3(33) and 3(28). Significantly, Section 5(6)
of the Act refers to calculating the extent of land held or deemed to be held by any person, the extent of land which may revert to such person
immediately after the death of any limited owner shall, during the lifetime of the limited owner, be excluded.
It is to be borne in mind after the passing of the Act 17 of 1970 the family''s holding had to be determined with reference to the notified dated
i.e., 2.10.1970 as per decision B.K.V. Radhamani Ammal Vs. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Coimbatore, . As a matter of fact, Section 5(1)
(a) of the Act under the caption ''Ceiling area'' enjoins that ''Subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (3-A), 93-B), and (3-C) and of Chapter
VIII, the ceiling area in the case of every person (other than the institutions referred to in Clauses (c) and (d) and subject to the provisions of Sub-
sections (3-A), (3-B), (3-C), (4) and (5) and of Chapter VIII, the ceiling area in the case of every family consisting of not more than five members
shall be 15 standard acres.'' On a reading of the ingredients of Section 5(6) of the Act makes it clear that a total exclusion is not permitted and the
interest of the limited owner and the remainder man are governed as per the provisions of the Act and therefore, it cannot be said by any means
that a limited owner or a remainder man are altogether outside the ambit and purview of the Act. Therefore, Maikanna Gounder (land owner) and
his wife Rathinammal possessed only the right of enjoyment in the lands settled by Hanumantharaya by means of settlement deed dated 22.7.59
and as such, the lands covered by the settlement deed are to be taken into account as the lands possessed by the land owner Maikanna Gounder
notwithstanding the fact that Maikanna Gounder and his wife Rathinammal were limited owners or life estate holders and resultantly, the lands
referred to under the above said settlement deed have to be taken into account in regard to the fixation of the ceiling and determining the excess
land of the land owner Maikanna Gounder.
It is an axiomatic fact that patta is not a title document. In the present case, we are concerned with the land owner Maikanna Gounder''s family
and as such, his holdings will have to be determined and in respect of the entire proceedings the said Maikanna Gounder was treated as the land
owner and his agricultural holding alone will have to be taken into account and determined. Just because the patta stands in the name of Nagammal
and Rathinammal, by no stretch of imagination, it can be construed as separate unit and resultantly, the observation of the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur
in this regard is not sustainable in the eye of law.
That apart, though an endeavour has been made before the third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal, on the side of petitioners/respondents
3 to 5, to approach the unregistered partition deeds dated 18.4.1993 and 31.12.1969 executed by deceased Rathinammal and three daughters,
the third respondent/Tribunal has come to the conclusion that they are void documents.
In the light of the detailed discussions and on an appreciation of the entire gamut of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
considered view that the third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal has passed a reasoned order in coming to the conclusion that the lands held
by Chinnammal by virtue of settlement deed dated 22.7.59 in Survey Nos. 60, 75/1, 75/3, 69/8 and 62/1of Alasanthapuram village are to be
excluded from the holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder and in other aspects rightly dismissed the objections raised by the
petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 and passed a further just and equitable direction in directing the first respondent/Authorised Officer to issue notices
individually to the writ petitioners and to hear them for suggesting the surplus lands as per Section 10(4) of the Act and further, the first
respondent/Authorised Officer has been directed to publish the draft statement u/s 10 of the Act and proceed further in accordance with law which
are not liable to be interfered with from any point of view and resultantly, the writ petition fails.
In fine, for the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed without costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.