Thirumathi Rajam Sivasubramaniam alias Muthu Meenakshi Veeralakshmi Nagammal vs The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Tirunelveli and another

Ismail, J.—This is a petition under 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. (LT) 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 S.74 of the Act had been omitted by Tamil Nadu Act 41 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 41 of 1971. The second contention is that the Tribunal had not properly dealt with the claim for exemption of those made by the petitioner under 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 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 under 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 under 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 S. 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. S. 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 bold sues grazing land, upto an extent of 50 acres in addition to the ceiling area."

S. 3 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1971 provided:

"S.74 and 75 of the Principal Act had been omitted. "

The question for consideration is what is the effect of this omission of S. 74 According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the present proceedings were initiated before the commencement of the Act under Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1971, the Tribunal ought not to take into account the omission of S. 74 and should have applied S. 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 41 of 1971, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of S.74. I am of the opinion that neither of these contentions is sound. Once S. 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 under S. 7 in addition to the ceiling area, Consequently, the moment S.74 was taken out of the statute book oven if the proceedings had already come to an end under the unamended Act, the person who was entitled to hold the land under S.74 in addition to the 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 S. 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 had 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 under 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 S. 3 (14) of the Act, the Authorised Officer rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner that the share of the third respondent who married between the date of commencement of the Act and the notified date, should be excluded. However, this view of the Tribunal is erroneous in view of the decision of this court. In Rajagopal Pillai Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, , this court has held that when an unmarried daughter is married after the date 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 ceiling on the basis that the share of the third respondent has to be excluded. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.