Special Appellate Tribunal has no propriety to exercise suo-motu power.

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.

1. The present writ petition is against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, whereby the Special Appellate Tribunal disposed of Special Revision Petition No. 108 of 1992 and D. No. 825 of 1993. For appreciating the controversy involved the factual panorama will have to be understood.

2. One Muthu Reddiar was the rightful land holder. He held extensive lands. He is no more. It is an admitted position that R. Padmavathi, the petitioner before us, is his legal representative. Proceedings began under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling on Land Act and an order came to be passed on 1.12.1973 in respect of the land holding of the said Muthu Reddiar. This proceeding was held under Section 22 of the Act and the authority examined the Return filed by the said Muthu Reddiar in Form 2 on 27.12.1972. During the enquiry, it was found that the said Muthu Reddiar had made two gift settlements in favour of his minor grandsons and another gift settlement in favour of his brother-in-law's minor sons. He had also sold land to the extent of 6.10 acres to three persons after 26.3.70 but before the notified date, that is 2.10.1970. The concerned Authority examined all these transactions and came to the conclusion on the basis of the enquiry and the evidence before him that the transactions were made after the commencement of the Act, but before the notified date. In respect of the gift deeds, items 1 and 2 at page 2 of the order, the authorised Officer held that they were gift deeds out of love and affection and were not with an intention to defeat the provisions of the Act. Same finding was recorded in respect of item No.3 in the Table given in that order. So also, in respect of items 4, 5 and 6 in respect of which the transferees were enquired on 27.1.1973, the finding of the authorised Officer is that the transactions were made without any intention to defeat the provisions of the Act. In short, all the six transactions in the Table in that order were held innocuous and valid under Section 22 of the Act. It was held that after deducting the land which was gifted and sold, the net extent of the land held by the landowner came to 25.50 ordinary acres equal to 11.998 standard acres as on 15.2.1970 and since his family consisted of himself and wife - two members, he was entitled to hold 15.000 standard acres under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act 58 of 1961 as amended by the Act 17 of 1970. Since the total holding was found to be below the ceiling limit, further proceedings were dropped.

3. Nothing happened in respect of the order which was passed way back on 1.12.1973. It seems that thereafter one order came to be passed by the Authorised Officer and the Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms Tribunal (the same authority who had passed the earlier order) on 18.11.1988. In the preamble of that order, the extent of the land held by the said Muthu Reddiar, son of Muthu Vellappa Reddiar was stated. Then a specific reference was made to the order dated 1.12.1973 and holding the Gift deeds and the sale deeds to be valid transactions under Section 2 of the Act. In paragraph 3, the Authority mentioned that as the interpretation of Section 22 of the Act was in doubt, the matter was taken before the Supreme Court in C.A.Nos.2542 to 2544 of 1972 filed on behalf of the State in the case of Authorised officer, Thanjavur on 4.5.1979 claiming that the transactions effected between the date of commencement of the Act and the notified date of the Act are void. It is further stated in paragraph 3 that the lands covered by the transactions attracting Section 22 of the Act should have been included in the holdings of the other holder. A reference is then made to a High Court Judgment by Nainar Sundaram, J. in W.P.Nos.3435 and 3436 of 1978, dated 3.2.1981 holding the interpretation of law given by the Supreme Court takes retrospective effect from the date of the commencement of