AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.A. Swami, C.J.—This civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 2nd May, 1986 passed in L.T.C.M.A. No. 25 of 1984
by the learned Additional District Judge of Pondicherry, modifying the order dated 13th September, 1984 passed by ''the Authorised Officer
(Land Reforms), Karaikkal in M.R. No. 1 of 1977. The proceeding relates to a ''declaration filed u/s 7 of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation
of Ceiling on Land), Act, 1973. (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent is the owner of the land. His family consisted of himself, his
wife and three unmarried daughters on the appointed day, namely, 24.1.1971. As per the provisions of the Act, within 30 days from the date as
may be specified in the notification issued by the Government, every person who on the appointed day, held land in excess of the ceiling area, was
required to furnish to the Authorised Officer within whose jurisdiction the holding of such person or the major part thereof is situated, a return
containing the particulars as stated in Section 7 of the Act. Accordingly the respondent filed a return. The Authorised officer determined the ceiling
area. Undisputedly, the holding of the respondent was 8.30.97 standard hectares. As per Section 14 of the Act, subject to the provisions of
Chapter VI of the Act, the ceiling area in the case of every person and in the case of every family consisting of not more than five members, shall
be 6 standard hectares. As the respondent''s holding exceeded six standard hectares by 2.30.97 standard hectares the Authorised Officer (Land
Reforms) declared that the respondent''s holding exceeded the ceiling limit. In this came the determination of the excess holding was made by the
Authorised Officer on the basis that on the appointed day, namely, 24.1.1971, the family of the respondent consisted of himself, his wife and three
unmarried daughters. Whereas, the appellate authority, namely, the Additional District Judge of Pondicherry, has held that the family, as it steed on
the date specified by the State Government has to be taken into account, and as on that day, one of the unmarried daughters of the respondent
came to be married, her share in the holding was required to be excluded, and on such exclusion, the respondents holding did not exceed the
ceiling limit. Accordingly, he modified the order of the Authorised Officer to that extent.
The point for consideration is, whether the learned District Judge is right in determining the ceiling area with reference to the date specified by
the State Government for the purpose of filing the return by the holder of the land as per Section 7 of the Act.
Section 2(24) of the Act defines the expression ""notified date"" as meaning the date specified in the notification issued by the Government under
Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Act defines the expression ""appointed day"" as meaning the 24th day of
January, 197l. The expression ""family"" as defined in Sub-section (10), of Section 2 of the Act is as follows:
family in relation to a person, means the person, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her minor sons and unmarried
daughters.
Section 4 of the Act fixes the ceiling area. Section 4(1)(a) of the Act specifically provides that subject to the provisions of Chapter VI, the ceiling
area in the case of every person and in the case of every family consisting of not more than five members, shall be six standard hectares. we need
not refer to the other provisions contained in Section 4 of the Act because we are concerned with the family which consisted of only five members
on the appointed day. It is also unnecessary to refer to Chapter VI because in this case, the determination as to the ceiling area of a cultivating
tenant is not involved with which Chapter VI deals. All that can be said at this stage is that the ceiling area in the case of a family consisting of not
more than five members is fixed as six standard hectares under the Act. Section 5 of the Act deals with the basis of calculation of the extent of land
held by the founder of a public trust with which we are not concerned. Section 6 is material for our purpose and it deals with the ceiling on holding
land. It specifically provides - ""on and from the appointed day, no person shall, except as otherwise provided in this Act, but subject to the
provisions of Chapter VI, be entitled to hold land, in excess of the ceiling area."" Therefore, it is clear that the ceiling area, and whether the land
holding is in excess of the ceiling area, of a person or a family have to be determined only with reference to the appointed day, namely, 24.1.1971,
Section 7 of the Act provides for furnishing of returns by persons holding land in excess of the ceiling area, as such it is necessary to refer to Sub-
section (1) of Section 7 which reads thus:
Furnishing of return by persons holding land in excess of ceiling area: (1) within thirty days from such date as may be specified in the notification
issued by the Government in this behalf, every person, who, on the appointed day held land in excess of the ceiling area shall, in respect of all land
held by such parson, on such day, furnish to the authorised officer within whose jurisdiction the, holding of such person or the major part thereof is
situated, a return containing the following particulars, namely,
(i) particulars of all the lands;
(ii) particulars of the members of the family and of the land held by each member of the family;
(iii) particulars of any interest either in the land held by the trust or in the income from such land reserved in his favour or in favour of any member
of his family;
(iv) particulars of encumbrances, if any, over the land together with the name and address of the creditors;
(v) particulars of any pending litigation respecting the land or part thereof; (vi) particulars of the land which such person desires to retain within the
ceiling area and the land which he desires to be declared as surplus land;
(vii) particulars of the land held by tenant, if any, arid the name and address of such tenant; (viii) such other particulars as may be prescribed.
From Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, it is clear that the date specified in the notification has nothing to do with the determination of the
ceiling area or holding in excess of the ceiling area. It has reference only to filing of the return by persons holding land in excess of the ceiling area.
The returns are required to be filed within thirty days from the date specified in the notification by the Government. Accordingly, the notification
Issued u/s 7 of the Act specified the date as 1.3.1975. That is the date from which the period for filing the returns u/s 7(1) of the Act has to be
computed. Section 9(1) of the Act deals with the preparation and publication of draft statement as regards land in excess of the ceiling. Section
9(2)(a) of the Act specifically provides that for the purpose of calculating after the appointed day the ceiling area of a family holding land on the
appointed day in excess of six standard hectares, the authorised officer shall take into account only those members of that family who are alive on
the notified date. Here, the marriage of one of the daughters of the respondent has been taken for excluding that member from the calculation of the
number of members of the family. It is not possible to agree with the learned District Judge. Sub-section 2(a) of Section 9 of the Act specifically
provides for determination of the Ceiling area with reference to the appointed day.
A reading of the definition of the expressions ""appointed day"" and ""notified date"" and the provisions contained in Clause (ii) of explanation (b) to
Sub-section (3) of Sections 4,6,7 and 9(2)(a) of the Acts leads to one and the only conclusion that the ceiling area of a person or a family has to
be determined under the Act only with reference to the appointed day, viz., the 24th day of January, 1971. Sub-section 2(a) of Section 9 only
provides that if in between the appointed day and the notified date, which is the date specified in Section 7 of the Act, if any one of the members of
the family dies, and as a result the number of members of the family is reduced, it is stated that it is only those members of the family who are alive
6n the notified date as family who are alive on the. notified date as specified in the notification issued u/s 7 of the Act, will have to be taken into
account. Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 9 of the Act cannot be read to cover the ease of family in which the number of member of the family is
reduced not because of death of a member but because of ""marriage"", of an unmarried daughter. The words used are,"" the authorised officer shall
take into account only those members of that family who are alive on the notified date"". Therefore, the daughter whose marriage takes place in
between the appointed day and the notified date cannot be excluded in determining the ceiling area of a family. It is only the death of a member of
the family in between these dates can have the effect of reducing the number of members of the family. Therefore, the Authorised officer was
justified in determining the ceiling area with reference to be number of members of the family being five as on 24.1.1971, and not with reference to
the notified date i.e. 1.3.1975. Accordingly, it follows that the order of the learned District Judge cannot be sustained.
For the reasons stated above, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order dated 2.5.1986, passed by the District Judge in L.T.C.M.A. No.
25 of 1984, is set aside and the order passed by the Authorised Officer, (Land Reforms), Karaikkal, dated 13.9.1984, in M.R. No. 1 of 1977 is
restored. No costs. It is also necessary to clarify that the Act contains specific provisions wherever the date other than the appointed date has to
be taken into account for determining the ceiling area, such as Sections9(2)(b), 21 and 30 etc., Therefore, this decision shall not be understood Or
construed as covering these situations which do not arise for consideration in this case.