K.B.K. Vasuki, J.

The present revision is filed by Commissioner and Director of land reforms for setting aside the order of the Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal made in LTC.Nos.24, 25 and 26 of 1996 dated 31.12.1996.

2. The few facts relevant for consideration herein are as follows :-

The third respondent by name Rangasamy Gounder owned an extent of 89.49 ordinary acres equivalent to 25.421 standard acres, out of which the land owner settled an extent of 39.58 ordinary acres equivalent to 9.895 standard acres of land in the name of his mother under two documents dated 27.03.1970 and 16.04.1970 and he also sold 1.99 ordinary acres to one Kumarasamy Gounder vide document No.157 dated 07.3.1970. The original authority/Authorized Officer (Land Reforms) passed an order on 16.01.1974 holding the transaction to be void and hit by Section 22 of the Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act 1961. The order was challenged by the third respondent and his mother in LTA.Nos.140 and 141 of 1974 before the Land Tribunal, Coimbatore and the same were dismissed and the order of the Land Tribunal was again challenged by the third respondent and his mother in CRP.Nos. 2489 and 2490 of 1975. This Court by order dated 06.02.1978, having found that the authorized officer has not examined either the transferor or transferee or both and the authorized officer has not taken into consideration the fact that the settlement had been executed in favour of his own mother by the transferor in view of the maintenance to which she was entitled from the estate of her husband, arrived at a conclusion that the findings of the authorized officer about the bogus nature of the transaction is not based on proper appreciation of the circumstances of the case, but is on the basis of surmises and speculations and is whimsical in nature. The High Court has further observed therein that the right claimed by the transferee/mother cannot be slightly negatived by holding the settlement deeds as bogus documents. The High Court by observing so, set aside the order of the Authorized Officer holding the settlement deeds dated 27.03.1970 and 16.04.1970 as sham and nominal and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry by the authorized officer, with liberty given to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of their contention.

3. After remand, fresh enquiry was conducted by the authorized officer who held that the transactions in question are void in nature as they reduced the area of holding and the extent of surplus to be declared under the Act thereby defeating the purpose and object of the enactment. Aggrieved by such order, the mother and son again preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority (ie) the District Revenue Officer (Land Tribunal) Thanjore. The Appellate Authority on the basis of the report of the Inspector, Land Revenue Reforms dated 16.11.1973 given to the Special Deputy Tahsildar (land reforms) for the exclusion of 5.31acres of land covered by coconut thope for more than 30-40years and by applying the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Section 21-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, found that the mother having acquired the property by way of registered documents dated 27.03.1970 and 16.04.1970 in lieu of her maintenance, become absolute and full owner by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the same is covered under Section 21(A)(a) and the transactions are notwithstanding any thing contained in Section 22 or in any other provision of law under this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, shall be valid and not hit by Section 22 of the Act and the same cannot be included in the holdings of the land owner Rangasamy. The appellate authority has also placed reliance on the report of the Special Revenue Inspector land reforms dated 10.05.1973 given to the Special Tahsildar (Land reforms) which was in turn submitted to the Authorized Officer, Coimbatore and the same was received