Susiladevi Ammal and others vs The State of Madras, by the Collector of Tanjore

Ramaprasada Rao, Offg. C.J.

In this petition, there is no dispute that Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 has to be applied to the facts. The holding of a landlord has to be

determined as on 6th April 1960. The notified date is 2nd October 1962. Notifications under Ss. 12 and 14 have not been issued. The question

arose whether a sale effected by the landlord after 6th April 1960, but before the notified date, and in any event before the notification under S.12,

has to be considered or not for purposes of fixing the quantum of the land holding. The transaction being a sale, the petitioners ought to have

produced the sale deed or any substituted evidence therefor before the Authorised Officer. He did not do so. But they produced the same before

the Appellate Authority, namely, the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge, Mayuram). The learned Judge rejected the said document and did not

consider it as he was of the view that Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 and not Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1970 would apply to the facts of this case.

Secondly, the Officer was of the view that a partition between the members of the family on 29th April 1970 cannot be taken into consideration at

all as it was a partition deed after 6th April 1970. For these two reasons, the Tribunal did not interfere with the order of the Authorised Officer. As

against this, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. As regards the first point whereunder the Land Tribunal (sic) refused to consider for

all purposes the sale deed under which the land holder is said to have sold about 3 acres and 66 cents on 16th June 1962, there is some force in

the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. S 22 does not lay down an embargo on the consideration of such sales particularly to

discover therefrom whether the sale was a motivated sale or a designed sale. If such a sale effected by the land-holder is for the purpose of

circumventing the law and the Act in question, then it could be ignored. If, however, it is a fair, simple and genuine sale, it could be taken into

account by the Authorised Officer. That this is the effect of S. 22 of the Act is seen from a decision rendered by Ramanujam, J. in Naganatha Iyer

v. Authorised Officer 1971-1 M.L.J. 274=84 L.W. 69. The learned Judge observed as follows--

S. 22 has to be construed as one intended to invalidate transfers entered into only with a view to defeat the provisions of the Act without a bona

fide intention to transfer title under the document of transfer.

I shall adopt the ratio of this decision of the learned Judge.

Then the question arises whether the mere circumstance that the sale deed was not produced before the Authorised Officer, but only before the

Appellate Authority would disentitle the petitioners from perusing their remedies to satisfy the statutory authorities that the sale deed is a genuine

one and that the subject matter of the sale deed ought to be excluded for the purpose of fixing the ceiling limit. As law is always tempered with

mercy, and justice is a product of such merciful application of law, the Appellate Authority should have given an opportunity to the petitioners to

refer to the sale deed dated 16th June 1962, and satisfy, if they could, that it was a genuine one. This opportunity was not given to the petitioners.

To that extent, there is a material irregularity in the order which has to be corrected.

A reference could also be made to S. 78(3)(c) of the Act which enables the Appellate Authority to consider additional evidence if the situation

warrants. As regards the second point, there is no substance in it having regard to the amendment of S. 23 itself by Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 1974.

By the amended Act, a retrospective effect was given to the new provision made under it. Under the amended provision S. 23(b) of the Act, any

sub-division; whether by a partition or otherwise effected on or after the notified date and before the publication of a notification under sub-S. (1)

of S. 18 of the Act shall be deemed to have been void, and accordingly the Authorised Officer shall calculate the ceiling area of such person as if

no such transfer or sub-division had taken place. This amended provision is retroactively operative. Having regard to the amended provision as

above, the decision in B.E.K. Nattar v. Authorised Officer A.I.R 1973-Mad 389, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be

of any help to them. As the law stands, any partition effected after the Act came into force shall be void and shall be ignored by the Authorised

Officer. In these circumstances, the petitioners cannot have relief in so far as the second point is concerned. The Civil Revision Petition is partly

allowed, and the subject matter is remitted to the file of the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge, Mayuram) for a fresh consideration in the light of

the observations as above. There will be no order as to costs.