IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that transfers made to evade land ceiling laws are void under Section 22, emphasizing the importance of timely action by affected parties.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

1. The present Intra Court Appeal has been instituted challenging the writ order dated 03.11.2015 in WP No. 25731 of 2011.

2. The writ petitioners are the appellants before us.

3. The land measuring 6.02 acres in S. No. 80/2 (Old S.Nos.229 and 241) in Perur Village, Coimbatore District, is the subject matter in the present Writ Appeal.

3.1 Once Smt.K.R.Masthammal had executed the Settlement Deed in favour of Smt.Rukmani @ Prema (Foster daughter), land measuring 50.35 acres. The said Smt.K.R.Masthammal had executed another Settlement Deed in favour of another Foster daughter viz., Smt.Thai @ Nanjammal to an extent of 33.59 acres.

4. The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Lands) Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', in short], came into force. The Act was notified in the Gazette on 02.10.1962 and retrospective effect was given. Consequently, the Authorities under the Act, issued notices to transferors and transferees on 01.08.1967.

5. The Settlement Deeds executed on 06.04.1960 and 09.04.1960 were fell under the definition of the Act. As the Settlement Deeds were executed after the date of commencement of the Act, the Competent Authorities invoked Section 22 of the Act by declaring that the transfers are void. Objections received from the affected persons and Settlees, were taken into considerations and the Authorised Officer held that all alienations made after commencement of the Act, are void under Section 22 of the Act. Accordingly, the said position was confirmed.

6. The affected persons Mr.Venkatachallah Udaiyar, Smt.K.R.Masthammal, Smt.Thai @ Nanjammal, Smt.Rukmani @ Prema, filed Land Tribunal Appeal Cases in LTA Nos.173, 206, 207 and 208 of 1967. All the appeals were dismissed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal on 23.12.1968. Notedly, the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of S. Naganatha Ayyar vs. Authorised Officer, (1971) 1 MLJ 264 held that bona fide transfers need not be interfered with by the Competent Authorities by invoking Section 22 of the Act.

7. Relying upon the said judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in S.Naganatha Ayyar case (cited supra), the Civil Revision Petitions (CRPs) filed by the affected persons in CRP Nos. 248 to 260 of 1969, are allowed on 22.01.1971. Consequently, the Settlement Deeds were restored and remaining extent of land had been declared as surplus under the Act.

8. Pertinently, the decision in S.Naganatha Ayyar case (cited supra), by the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 04.05.1979 in the very same case of Authorised Officer vs. S. Naganatha Ayyar, (1979) 3 SCC 466. The ratio laid down by the Madras High Court that bona fide transfers are to be exempted from the provisions under Section 22 the Act, was held as invalid and all the actions of the Competent Authorities under Section 22 of the Act, are held valid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

9. Pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, The Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 103, dated 03.02.1986 under Section 18 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Lands) Act, 1961. Civil Appeals were filed in respect of few cases, based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Authorised Officer vs. S. Naganatha Ayyar, (1979) 3 SCC 466 (cited supra). All those Civil Appeals were allowed on 28.09.1986. Consequently, the Land Commissioner, Chennai confirmed the order of the Government in RP No. 41 of 1986 by dismissing the appeal filed by Smt.Thai @ Nanjammal and Smt.Rukmani @ Prema.

10. On 12.02.1987, Notification under the Act, was published by declaring 6.02 acres in SF No. 80/2 as surplus. The Assistant Commissioner under the Act, had taken possession of the land pursuant to the Gazette Notification dated 12.02.1987. The DRO/Appellate Authority, Madurai, directed the third respondent to issue revised Notification under Section 18 (1)