Judgment

BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. :- With the obvious intent of falling in line with the rest of the country in the matter of achieving the social goal of equitable distribution of cultivable lands by the imposition of ceiling on agricultural land holdings and distribution of surplus lands among landless persons, the Legislature of the Union Territory of Pondicherry enacted The Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act). The, questions arising for determination in this appeal concern the interpretation of some of the provisions of the Act.

2. Before we proceed to refer to the relevant sections of the Act, we shall set out in brief the material facts, which have given rise to the controversy before us.

3. The appellant Vengdasalam Pillai is married to Smt. Senbagevalli Ammal. Five children-three daughters and two sons-were born to this couple. On March 17, 1970, the appellant effected a partition of all his properties as between himself and his two sons both of whom were minors at that time. This partition was evidenced by a registered document. Under that document the appellant retained in his name an extent of 1-85-63 hectares of land. The first son, Shanmugasundaram (minor) was alloted 7-10-24 hectares and the younger son Srinivasan was allotted an extent of 3.54.82 hectares-of land. An area of 5.74.87 hectares stood registered in the name of the appellants wife Senbagevalli, the said land having been purchased by her in 1958 by utilising her Sridhanam money.

4. The Act was passed by the legislative assembly on October 5, 1973 and after it received the assent of the Preside September 22, 1974, it was published Gazette of Pondicherry on October 14, 1974.

5. Since the appellant did not voluntarily file a return under section 7(1) of the Act, a notice in Form-4 was issued to him by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Karaikal under section 8(1) of the Act. in compliance therewith the appellant, filed a return on December 12, 1975 stating that he and his wife were holding only 7.67.91 hectares of land. Thereafter separate notices were issued by the Authorised Officer to the appellant and his wife to file further representations, if any, and to appear before him for enquiry on the dates specified therein. In response to these notices, the appellant and his wife filed separate representations reiterating their original stand that the lands allotted to the minor sons under the partition as also the lands acquired by the appellants wife with the Stridhanam amounts could not be taken into account while computing the extent of the appellants holding. The Authorised Officer rejected these contentions and held that the appellant was holding an extent of 18.26.28 ordinary hectares equivalent to 11.48.55 standard hectares of land and since the appellants family consisted of himself, his wife, two minor sons and three unmarried daughters, he was eligible to retain only 8.40.00 standard hectares.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Authorised Officer, the appellant preferred an appeal in the Court of the Land Tribunal, Karaikal. That appeal was allowed by the Land Tribunal which took the view that since the sons of the appellant had become divided from him by the deed of partition executed in 1970, long prior to the appointed day specified in the Act, and since the lands standing in the name of the appellants wife belonged to her independently in her own separate right, there was no justification for clubbing together the lands of the appellant and those belonging to his wife and the two minor sons. The Land Tribunal held that since the two minor sons of the appellant and the wife of the appellant were holding their lands as independent owners, the definition of "family" under section 2(10) of the Act was not attracted in this cage and that the Authorised Officer ought to have excluded the lands belonging to the sons and the wife of the appellant while computing the extent of the ho