ORDER.-The State of Tamil Nadu,. through the State Representative (Land Reforms), the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Madurai-2 (the respondent here in), issued a notice, dated 4th April, 1970 under section 9 (2) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Cailing on Land Act, (LVIII of 1961) hereinafter referred to as the Act), directing the petitioner herein to show cause why he should not hand over 4.25 standard acres from out of his private trust lands. According to the respondent, the petitioner is having a private trust, that the private trust is entit]fd to hold only 30 standard acres and that since he is owning 34.25 standard acres, he has to declare an extent of 4.25 standard acres as surplus holding. The petitioner alleged before the respondent that the trust is exempted from the operation of the Act and that he would produce necessary documents and sought extension of time to file his objections to the notice under section 9 (2) (b). In spite of several opportunities given to the petitioner to file his objections, no objection was filed by him before the respondent. Finally, the respondent rejected the further request for grant of extension of time by a month to file objection, and directed the petitioner to furnish the particulars of surplus land to the extent of 4.25 standard acres within seven days from the date of the receipt of his order, dated 22nd June, 1970.

2. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Authorised Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Ramanathapuram at Madurai. Before the Land Tribunal, the petitioner contended that under section 73 (ii) (b) of the Act, all trusts are exempted from the operation of the Act, that no portion of the properties can be declared as surplus land, that section 6 of the Act, which deals with the basis of calculation of the extent of land held by the founder of a trust, has no application to his case, that if section 6 is excluded, there is no basis for resorting to section 5 for declaring any portion of the lands as surplus and that the respondent was wrong in proceeding on the basis that the trust in question is a ‘private’ trust. The Land Tribunal, after observing that the settlement deed cannot be construed as creating a ‘public’ trust, and also distinguishing the decision in The Commissioner, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras v. Narayana 1, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred this C.R.P. under section 83 of the Act and section 115, Civil Procedure Code.

3. Thiru S.V. Jayaraman, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that any ‘trust’ is exempted from the operation of the Act, as per section 73 (ii) (b) thereof. The learned Counsel also brought to my notice the provision under section 3 (49) defining ‘trust’ and stated that a ‘trust’ means trust for a public purpose of a religious or charitable or of an educational, nature. The learned’ Counsel also stated that the trust deed clearly creates a ‘public’ trust and submitted that any mention in the nature of private benefit found in the deed can be ignored in view of the specific mention of the public nature of the trust in the deed itself.

4. Thiru Kumaragurrubaran, appearing on behalf of the Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the trust is this case is a ‘private’ trust and that there is absolutely nothing in the deed directing a ‘public’ purpose. He also submitted that the trust itself was created for the benefit of the family members and as such it will not be exempted under section 73 of the Act.

5. The Act, in its defining section..... section 3 (49)-contemplates only a trust which is intended for public purpose of a religious or charitable, or of an educational, nature. Hence it is necessary to construe as to whether the present trust is a trust for a public purpose of a religious or charitable nature. The question as to whether it is a ‘public’ trust or a ‘

Click Here to Read the rest of this document