Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Ramaswamy : Sujata V.Manohar
V.Gopal Reddiar: E.Venkatachalam: Thiruvarasu Pillai
Versus
State Of Tamil Nadu: Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) , Cuddalore: Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) , Tiruchirapalli
Case No. : 3774 , 3775 of 1992
Date of Decision : 2/24/95
Advocates Appeared: Balachandran V. : Francis Peter : Mariarputham A. : Mathur Aruna : Parasaran K. : Ramasubramaniam V. : Srinivasan K. : Srinivasan S. : Sundaravaradan : Swamy K.
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Section 5 - Principal Act – Tenant – Condo nation of delay - Under Section 7 of the Principal Act, on and from the date of commencement of the Act (i.e. on and from 6/4/1960 no person shall (except as otherwise provided in this Act, but subject to the provisions of Ch. VIII) hold land in excess of the ceiling area. Under Section 8, within 90 days of the notified date, every person holding or deemed to be holding land in excess of the ceiling area is required to furnish to Officer a return in respect of his land as specified in that section notified date under the Principal Act - Under Section 10 Officer is required to prepare a draft statement in respect of a persons holding in excess of the ceiling area in the manner and on the basis specified therein. This draft statement is required to be published. A final statement has thereafter to be prepared and published as set out in S. 12 to 14 – Held, IN this connection, a reference has also been made to the case of Officer, Land Reforms - In that case appellant-landowner had land in excess of 30 standard acres as on 6/4/1960. He filed a return as required by the Principal Act and an enquiry was initiated by Officer -Under the said Act several objections raised by the appellant were rejected and Officer determined the surplus holding of the appellant. There were various proceedings in connection with this finding of the enquiry officer which ultimately went in revision before the High court. One of the pleas raised before the High court was in connection with certain documents executed by the appellant between - Section 21-A came to be incorporated in the Principal Act by reason of the Reduction Act. The High court held that provisions of Section 21-A would have to be applied for determining the ceiling area. It further held that if the documents executed were found to be in order to defeat the provisions of the Act, the transactions may be declared void under Section 22 of the Act. This finding of the High court was challenged before this court. This court considered the provisions of Section 21 -A and Section 22 of the Principal Act as amended by the Reduction Act and held that Section 21-A, which begins with the words "notwithstanding anything contained in Section 22" clearly overrides Section 22. Hence transactions covered by Section 21-A cannot be inquired into under Section 22. In view of the overriding effect of Section 21-A over not only Section 22, but any other provision of law, it must override Section 3 - HOWEVER, the said provision gave, what we may call, a transfer holiday, for a small period providing that notwithstanding anything, contained in Section 22 or in any other provision of this Act, and in any other law for the time being in force, where any person has effected by means of a registered instrument a partition of his holding or part thereof such partition shall be valid. Now here the family which is a person under Section 3(47 of the Act by means of a registered partition deed effected a partition within those crucial dates. It is significant to notice that this provision with its non-obstante clause has asserted supremacy over all other provisions of the Act – Appeal allowed
Judgment
Sujata V.Manohar, J.
(1) LEAVE granted in CAs Nos. 3039-40 of 1995 Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 14935-14936 of 1994.
(2) SUBSTITUTION allowed in Civils Nos. 3774-3775 of 1992.
(3) ALL these appeals raise a common question of law relating to the interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Act") read with Tamil Nadu Act No. 17 of 1970 which is the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970. The latter Act is hereinafter referred to as "the Reduction Act". As the facts are different in each group of appeals, they are dealt with separately.
(4) THE deceased, V. Gopal Reddiar, the first appellant and his wife, the second appellant in these appeals, held agricultural lands in excess of the ceiling limit on 6/4/1960, which is the date of commencement of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. Under Section 5 of the Principal Act, a ceiling of 30 standard acres is fixed on land holding in the case of a family. An additional 10 standard acres is the ceiling on land holding of Stridhana land.
(5) UNDER Section 7 of the Principal Act, on and from the date of commencement of the Act (i.e. on and from 6/4/1960 no person shall (except as otherwise provided in this Act, but subject to the provisions of Ch. VIII) hold land in excess of the ceiling area. Under Section 8, within 90 days of the notified date, every person holding or deemed to be holding land in excess of the ceiling area is required to furnish to the Authorised Officer a return in respect of his land as specified in that section. The notified date under the Principal Act is 2/10/1962. Under Section 10(1 the Authorised Officer is required to prepare a draft statement in respect of a persons holding in excess of the ceiling area in the manner and on the basis specified therein. This draft statement is required to be published. A final statement has thereafter to be prepared and published as set out in S. 12 to 14.
(6) UNDER Section 23 of the Principal Act, if a person holds land in excess of the ceiling limit, any sale of land, effected by him after the notified date but before the publication of the final statement, cannot be taken into account in considering his holding for the purposes of fixing the ceiling. In the present case, the appellants effected sale transactions in respect of certain lands held by them between 3/7/1963 and 17/7/1964 i.e. after the notified date under the Principal Act. There are five such transactions of sale during this period.
(7) ON 28/7/1965, a draft statement was published in respect of the appellants lands under Section 10(1 of the Principal Act. The appellants objected to the draft statement on 18/11/1965. While the proceedings were pending under the Principal Act, the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970 came into force. The date of commencement of the Reduction Act is 15/2/1970. Under the Reduction Act. the ceiling on land in the case of a family was reduced to 15 standard acres and the ceiling on Stridhana land was reduced to 5 standard acres. The "notified date" under the Reduction Act was 2/10/1970.
(8) IT was the contention of the appellants that the transactions of sale effected between 3/7/1963 and 17/7/1964 were prior to the commencement of the Reduction Act, and should be excluded from their holding for the purpose of determining the now reduced ceiling limit under the pending proceedings. This submission was rejected. An order was passed on 20-11 -1971 asking the appellants to surrender 30.30 standard acres from out of their holding as surplus. Being aggrieved by the said order the appellants filed an appeal before the Land tribunal. The Land tribunal confirmed the order of the Authorised Officer and dismissed the appeal.
(9) IN revision, the High court by its order dated 16/7/197
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
