The interest of a remainderman can be interfered with by the application of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act (LVIII of 1961) to a limited owner, though the remainderman by himself or herself may not be the person to whom the provisions of the Act are applied.

V. Ratnam, J.

1. This civil revision petition arises out of proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act (LVIII of 1961) as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In the course of the enquiry held by the Authorised Officer it was found that the petitioner was in possession of an extent of 24.651/2 ordinary acres equivalent to 22.007 standard acres as on 15th February) 1970 and that an extent of 1.963 standard acres was in surplus. The petitioner had also indicated that four items of properties viz. S. No. 143/5--0.77 cents; S. No. 125/4--1.06 acres; S. No. 180/2--0.12 cents and S. No. 1.91--0.411/2 cents in Kulamani village may be declared as surplus lands. The first respondent raised an objection with reference to the items sought to be surrendered by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has only a life interest and that he is entitled to the remainder in two items of properties viz., S.F. No. 125/4 and S.F. No. 143/5 and therefore, these two items must be included within the ceiling area of the petitioner. This objection was rejected by the Authorised Officer, who passed an order to the effect that the compensation amount for these two items of properties will be kept in deposit and that the interest thereon will be given to the petitioner for her lifetime and the compensation amount will be paid to the first respondent after the death of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the first respondent preferred an appeal in (C.M.A. No. 36 of 1975 to the Land Tribunal) Principal Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli. By order dated 15th Aprill, 1976,the matter was remanded by the Land Tribunal to the Authorised Officer for fresh disposal. Pursuant to this, the matter was again reconsidered by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Tiruchirapalli. By order dated 25th June, 1977, the Authorised Officer held that under the provisions of the Act, a landowner having absolute or limited ownership in the land can offer any land as surplus and that the only basis on which the land so offered can be rejected is that the land is not capable of easy and convenient enjoyment or its utility had otherwise been diminished by the wilful act of the landowner. Therefore, the objections put forth by the first respondent herein were again regatived and the Authorised Officer directed the preparation of the final statement and the publication thereof. Against this order, the first respondent preferred C.M.A. No. 13 of 1977 to the Land Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli. The Land Tribunal, by its order dated 29th July, 1978, purporting to apply the decision of this Court in Krishnaswami Mudaliar v. Authorised Officer, Madras Land Reforms, Cuddalore, and holding that if the lands agreed to be surrendered by the petitioner are treated as surplus, the first respondent will be deprived of those lands but that he will be entitled only to the money compensation after the lifetime of the petitioner, directed that S.F. No. 125/4 and S.F. No. 143/5 of Kulamani village be included within the ceiling area of the petitioner. It is against this order the petitioner has come up in revision before this Court contending that the choice of lands to be surrendered by an "owner" within the meaning of the Act is unfettered and that it is not open to the first respondent to object to her surrendering any lands in which he may be any interest as a remainderman.

2. When this civil revision petition came up for hearing before one of us, having regard to the importance of the question raised, namely, whether the interest of a remainderman can be reached under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, while applying them to the case of a limited owner, the matter was directed to be posted before a bench in order to have an authoritative pronouncement on this question and that is how the matter comes up before us.

3. The principal contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that having regar