1979 Supreme(Mad) 50
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. R. Gokulakrishnan, J.
C. Muthu Bhattar .....Appellant(s)
Versus
The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms),Madurai .....Respondent(s)
C.R.P.No. 3616 of 1973.
Decided On : 24 January 1979
V. Ratnam, for K. Srinivasan, for Petitioner.
The Additional Government Pleader, for Respondent.
Non-affording of opportunity not fatal to the case.
Headnote:Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act, 1961-Section (2)(b) -Failure to give opportunity to the petition to represent while preparing statement on the basis of return furnished by the petitioner cannot be held fatal for the case.
1-A. On the basis of the return furnished by the petitioner herein under section 8 (1) of the Act, and on the materials collected through the field staff of the department, a draft statement containing the particulars of all lands held by him as 6th April, 1960 was prepared, and it was published in Supplement to Part 111 — No. 10 MM of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 14th March, 1973 as required in section 10 (1) of the Act. The draft statement was served on the petitioner on 22nd March, 1973. He filed a statement of objections to the draft statement on 19th April, 1974. The petitioner was heard in person on 21st May, 1973 and 2nd July, 1973 and during that time he filed documents, which have been marked as Exhibits P-l to P-7. Arguments were heard on 24th July, 1973 by the Authorised Officer, and the Authorised Officer, observing that no notice under section 9 (2) (b) of the Act is necessary since the draft statement was prepared on the basis of the materials furnished by the party and the petitioner is not entitled to exclude 44.70 acres on the ground that ryotwari patta was granted under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXX of 1963), held that the petitioner has to offer surplus lands of an extent of 20.385 L.C. standard acres and that the required lands will be selected from his holding and final statements published under section 12 of the Act. The order of the Authorised Officer further states that as regards the selection of surplus lands, a separate notice was being issued granting two weeks time to specify the details of surplus lands.
2. Aggrieved by the order of the Authorised Officer, the petitioner herein filed C.M. A. No. 451 of 1973 before the Land Tribunal Madurai. The Land Tribunal confirmed the order of the Authorized Officer both on the question of issuing notice under section 9 (2) (b) of the Act and also on the question of excluding lands for which ryotwari patta was granted under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXX of 1.963).
3. Aggrieved by the decisions of the Authorities below, the petitioner was preferred the! above civil revision petition.
4. Mr. Ratnam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took me through the orders of the Authorities below and also through the relevant provisions of the Act and the Tamil Nadu Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXX of 1963), in order to substantiate his contentions to the effect that the Authorities below erred in not issuing a notice under section 9 (2) (b) of the Act and that they have gone wrong in including minor mam lands for which ryotwari patta was granted, while calculating the surplus lands.
5. Mr. K. Govindarajan appearing on behalf of the Additional Government Pleader contended that no notice under section 9 (2) (b) of the Act is necessary, inasmuch as particulars were furnished by the petitioner himself and that the Authorities below have correctly included minor inam lands for which ryotwari patta was granted in favour of the petitioner.
6. I have carefully gone through the relevant statutory provisions and also the orders of the Authorities below.
7. It is seen from the facts of the case that a draft statement containing the particulars of the lands held by the petitioner as on 6th April, 1960 was prepared and published from the materials furnished by the petitioner under section 8 (1) of the Ceiling Act and also on the material collected from the field staff of the department. Section 9 of the Ceiling Act deals with cases where the party fails to furnish the return under section 8 or where