Back
1978 Supreme(Mad) 434
Madras High Court
RAMAPRASADA RAO,RAMANUJAM
V.Govindaswamy - Appellant
Versus
State of T.N. - Respondent
Decided On : 07/21/1978
V. Sridevan, for Petitioners; Addl. Govt. Pleader, for Respondent.
The wife's holding cannot be treated separately from that of the husband for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area of the family.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - CEILING AREA - FAMILY - WIFE'S HOLDING - WHETHER CAN BE TREATED SEPARATELY FROM THAT OF HUSBAND - TAMIL NADU LAND REFORMS (FIXATION OF CEILING ON LAND) ACT (58 OF 1961), SECS. 3(14), 3(34), 5(1), 5(2), 5(4), 5(5).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a husband and wife, owned a total of 22.15 standard acres of land. The Authorised Officer declared an extent of 5.02 standard acres as surplus from their holding, treating the wife's holding as a separate unit and deducting 10 standard acres which she was entitled to hold as stridhanam.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the wife's holding cannot be treated separately from that of the husband for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area of the family. The court observed that Sec. 5(4) of the Act merely gives a concession to a female member of the family, and merely because a female member is entitled to that concession, she cannot be treated as being separate from the family for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area of the family.
Issues: Whether the wife's holding can be treated separately from that of the husband for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area of the family.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the wife's holding cannot be treated separately from that of the husband for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area of the family. The court observed that Sec. 5(4) of the Act merely gives a concession to a female member of the family, and merely because a female member is entitled to that concession, she cannot be treated as being separate from the family for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area of the family.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and declared the petitioner's holding to be within the ceiling area.
RAMANUJAM, J. :- This revision petition was initially heard by Nainar Sundaram J. but as the learned Judge did not agree with the view expressed by Mohan J. in C.R.P. 904 of 1974, which was relied on by the respondent, he referred the matter for an authoritative ruling of a Division Bench.
2. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Mayuram, initiated proceedings for the fixation of the ceiling area of the petitioners herein who are husband and wife under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act (Act 58 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, Act 17 of 1970. The holdings held by each of the petitioners on the relevant date were as follows :
Ordinary Acres
Standard Acres
V Govindasami (husband)
12.79 ½ 7.13
G. Gnanambal (wife)
28.48 ½ 15.02
_______ ______
39.28 22.15
_______ ______
In the draft statement issued under S.10(1) of the Act, it was proposed to declare an extent of 8.03 ordinary acres equivalent to 5.02 standard acres as surplus from the above holdings. The first petitioner filed his objections to the draft statement contending (1) that his family consists of 9 members, namely, himself, his wife, five sons and two unmarried daughters and as such, his family is entitled to hold 30 standard acres and (2) that in pursuance of an agreement of sale entered into on 2-1-1970 with one Ghouse Maracair, he had parted with possession of 8.43½ ordinary acres and hence the said extent should be excluded from the holding of the family. The Authorised Officer repelled these objections and declared an extent of 5.02 standard acres as surplus as proposed in the draft statement.
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the Authorised Officer, the petitioners preferred an appeal, C.M.A.12 of 1973 to the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) of Mayuram. That appeal having been dismissed, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.
4. The second of the objections taken by the petitioners before the Authorised Officer and before the Land Tribunal has not been pressed before us and we are left only with the first contention.
5. As regards the first contention, it is submitted by Mr. V. Sridevan, learned counsel for the petitioners that the Authorised Officer has erroneously treated 5.02 standard acres out of the lands owned by the second petitioner as surplus, overlooking the fact that the second petitioner being the wife of the first petitioner will have to be taken as a member of his family, that lands held by both of them have to be treated as one unit for purpose of determining the ceiling area of the family, and that if the lands owned by both the petitioners are taken as forming one unit, then the family of the petitioners consisting of nine members is entitled to hold 30 standard acres as per the provisions of the said Act.
6. To appreciate the said contention of the petitioners, it is necessary to refer to the material provisions of the Act.
"Person" has been defined by Section 3(34) of the Act as follows -
"Person" includes any company family, firm, society or association of individuals whether incorporated or not; or any private trust or public trust".
Since 'person' has been defined as including a family, we have to see the definition of family. Family has been defined in S.3(14) 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 (i) minor sons and unmarried daughters, and (ii) minor granddaughters in the male line, whose father and mother are dead."
Sec. 3(12) defines 'stridhana land' as follows -
"'stridhana land' means any land held on the date of the commencement of the Act by any female member of a family in her own name."
Sec. 5(1)(a) and (b) which fixes the ceiling area of every person are extracted below -
"5. Ceiling area : (1)(a) Subject to the provisions of Sub-Ss. (3-A) and (3-C) and of Chap. VIII, the ceiling area in the case of
