SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Mad) 358

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.
S. R. Ramasami Gounder .....Appellant(s)
Versus
The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Coimbatore .....Respondent(s)
C.R.P. No. 3252 of 1973,
Decided On : 16 July 1976

Advocates:
A. Sundaram Iyer and S. Palaniswamy, for Petitioner.
K. S. Bakthevatsalam, for the Addl. Govt, Pleader, for Respondent.

Applicability of the provisions of Act of 1961 to such holdings.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961-Sections 3 (42) and 10 (4)-Sridhana land-Inheritance of land from son under Hindu Succession Act-Neither mutation proceedings initiated nor change done in the public register-Held, provisions of 1961 Act applicable.

       

ORDER.-This revision petition is under section 83 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961 read with section 115, Civil Procedure Code. The competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961 by issuing a notice under section 50 (3) (a) (ii) dated 11th May, 1971 called upon the petitioner as the head of the family consisting of himself and his wife Visalakshi Ammal to submit necessary returns in connection with their agricultural holding for the purpose of producing the same in the usual enquiry for fixing the ultimate ceiling limit which the members of the family unit can have. Pursuant to the said notice, necessary draft statements were prepared by the competent authority and the petitioner Sri S. R. Ramsami Gounder filed his objections thereto and the Authorised Officer by his order dated 18th March, 1973 fixed the ceiling limit. The Tribunal agreed with him. Hence this revision.

2. It is necessary to state a few facts prior to the issuance of the notice under section 53 (3) (a) (ii) of the Act. The family consisting of Ramasami

Gounder. Visalakshmi Ammal and their minor son Rangaswami Gounder owns considerable properties. They were the subject-matter of a deed of partition dated 20th December, 1969. Under the said partition., the only son Rangaswami Gounder, was allowed about 47 acres. The wife Visalakshi Ammal got about 10 acres and the father retained 20 acres towards his share. Soon after the deed of partition, the minor died and his holding devolved on his mother under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The enquiry started soon after the death of Rangaswami Gounder regarding the quondom holding of the deceased minor. In such proceecings, Visalakshi Ammal represented the minor’s estate. There it was discovered that Visalakshi Ammal was entitled to a particular area as heir of her son and that she had besides the said property acquired by her as mother of her son, properties of her own which were her streedhana properties. In those circumstances, the Authorised Officer declared the surplus in the hands of Visalakshi Ammal then at a particular figure. It happens that after the enquiry into the holding of the deceased minor was itself completed, the competent authority took up again proceedings to ascertain and delimit the ceiling limit of the family of Ramasami Gounder. By then, the family consisted of Ramasami Gounder and Visalakshi Ammal. On the service of notice under section 50 (3) (a) (ii) dated 11th May, 1971 as already stated, Sri Ramasami Gounder submitted his objections to the draft proceedings and also appeared before the Authorised Officer contesting, firstly that the definition of ‘streedhana’ in the Act would not include the land which does not stand in her name though owned by her and secondly that the Authorised Officer ought not to unreasonably reject that portion of the holding of an assessee which she offered soon after the fixation of the ceiling limit by the Authorised Officer though without prejudice to her further rights. Factually also it is contended that the Authorised Officer as well as the Tribunal which rejected such an offer made by the holder of the land is not in consonance with the principles adumbrated in section 10 of the Act. A third argument is addressed before me by Mr. Sundaram Iyer, which was not taken earlier before either the Authorised Officer or the Land Tribunal. This is that the statutory functionaries are estopped from proceeding once over under the same statute against Visalakshi Ammal, they having once determined her ceiling in accordance with law.

3. I shall consider the last point first. It is no doubt true that there were certain proceedings which were taken against Visalakshi Ammal under the provisions of the Act. But it is found on a perusal of the same and as pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader that those proceedings were in relation to the estate of late Rangasami Gounder who died as owner of the land possessed of it. Incidentally, while fix








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top