IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:5.11.2009 Coram THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.2824 of 2002 and W.P.M.P.No.3968 of 2002 1.Tmt.Vijayalakshmi 2.Tmt.Jayalakshmi @ Kamatchi 3.Tmt.Logalakshmi .. Petitioners vs. 1.The Authorised Officer and Asst. Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram. 2.The Land Tribunal, Thanjavur. 3.The Tamilnadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal Santhome, Chennai-600 004. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Tamilnadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, the third respondent herein made in S.R.P.No.15/1999 dated 01.08.2001 and quash the same. For petitioners : Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, S.C. For M/s.G.Bhardwaj For Respondents : Mrs.Malarvizhi Udayakumar Special Government Pleader ORDER The petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 have preferred this writ petition as against the order dated 01.08.2001 in S.R.P.No.15 of 1999 passed by the third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal and to quash the same. 2.The third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal, while passing orders in S.R.P.No.15 of 1999 on 01.08.2001, has, inter alia, held that 'the lands held by Chinnammal by virtue of settlement deed dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 22.7.59 and registered as document No.2157/59 in Survey Nos.60, 75/1, 75/3, 69/8 and 62/1 of Alasanthapuram village have to be excluded from the holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder, and in all other respects have rejected the objections and contentions raised by the writ petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 and has further directed the Authorised Officer of Land Reforms at Villupuram to issue notices individually to the petitioners/ respondents 3 to 5 and after hearing them for suggesting the surplus lands as required under Section 10(4) of the Act, the Authorised Officer of the Land Reforms at Villupuram has been directed to publish a revised draft statement under Section 10(5) of the Act and to proceed further in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and resultantly, allowed the Special Revision Petition in part and set aside the judgment of the second respondent/Land Tribunal, Thanjavur dated 11.12.97 in LTCMA.No.28/1997.' 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 submits that the first petitioner/third respondent's grandfather Hanumantharaya Gounder (deceased) owned agricultural lands to an extent of 188.80 ordinary acres equivalent to 55.969 standard acres in the Villages of Alasanthapuram, Simukampattu and Narayanapuram in Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District and during his life time, he settled an extent of 16.58 ordinary acres of land situated at Alasanthapuram Village by means of a settlement deed dated 22.7.1959 in favour of his mother Chinnammal which is a registered document bearing No.2157/59 at the office of Sub-Registrar, Vaniyambadi and further on the same day, he settled another extent of 10.77 ordinary acres of land situated at Narayanapuram in her favour and in favour of the second petitioner/fourth respondent absolutely with mother Rathinammal as Guardian and added further, the grandfather of the first petitioner/third respondent has settled an extent of 113.83 ordinary acres of lands situated at Simukampattu village in favour of her father Maikanna Gounder and her mother Rathinammal by means of registered settlement deed dated 22.7.1959 giving them right of possession and enjoyment of the said lands for their life time without any power of alienation with a further condition after the life time the said lands should be equally shared by the petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 and also that her grandfather Hanumantharaya Gounder retained an extent of 47.67 ordinary acres of lands situated at Alasanthapuram out of the total extent owned by him and continuing further, the first petitioner/third respondent's grandfather expired on 01.06.1964 leaving behind him his wife Nagammal and his daughter Rathinammal as legal heirs and as such, her grandmother Nagammal and mother Rathinammal have succeeded to the extent of 47.67 ordinary acres retained by her grandfather Hanumantharaya Gounder and in an extent of 113.83 acres settled in favour of her father and mother consisted of fruit bearing trees planted before 1959 and the first respondent commenced proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 against her grandfather Maikanna Gounder as if he was the owner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of an entire extent of 188.80 ordinary acres equivalent to 55.969 standard acres as on 15.2.1970 and her grandfather has been called upon to attend an enquiry on 04.12.1992 and in the enquiry he appraised that only an extent of 113.80 ordinary acres of lands were settled both in his favour and his wife and that they had the life interest only in the aforesaid lands and the first respondent/Authorised Officer was informed about the lands retained by the grandfather and the factum of his death on 01.06.1964 and he was called upon to file Form No.2 by 14.12.1992 and he could not file the form as he suffered heart attack apart from the fact that he was a chronic diabetic patient and therefore, it was not correct to state that he refused to receive the notices sent by the Authorised Officer and even the endorsements of the postal authorities stated that her father had not come and received the notice and as a matter of fact, the report of Special Revenue Inspector was not correct since he never gave any intimation in this regard. 4.Further, it is the stand of the petitioners/ respondents 3 to 5 that the first petitioner/third respondent's father was suffering from heart ailment and therefore, he could not attend the enquiry on 24.6.1994 and was admitted in Aiyisha Hospital on 28.6.1994 and was discharged on 05.7.1994 and since he was advised bed rest, he could not attend the enquiry held on 13.7.1994 and the said absence was neither wilful nor wanton nor deliberate and in short, the order passed by the Authorised Officer as per Section 9(2)(b) of the Act by its proceedings dated 2.9.1994 coming to the conclusion that the first petitioner/ third respondent's father owned excess lands of 40.969 acres was purely based upon the presumption and there were no materials to show that the Authorised Officer complied with the provisions of Section 9(2)(a) of the Act and the Rule in collecting information and indeed, the first petitioner/ third respondent's father finally contacted his lawyer at Chennai in December 1995 who filed revision petition under Section 82 of the Act before the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Madras, under the impression that an order was passed as per Section 9(3) of the Act and this mistake was pointed out by the Office of the Commissioner of Land Reforms but the said office had not returned the papers and due to cardiac failure, the first petitioner/third respondent's father expired and subsequently, her mother Rathinammal filed an appeal in LTCMA.No.28 of 1997 before the Land Tribunal (District Revenue Officer), Thanjavur raising several grounds and the Land Tribunal, as an Appellate Authority, on 11.12.1997, allowed the appeal by holding that there was no reason for continuation of the land proceedings in the present case without taking into consideration the lands eligible for exemption and the Land Tribunal appreciated the fact that the first petitioner/third respondent's father Maikanna Gounder was not only the life estate holder, but the mother Rathinammal also had equal right with him as per the settlement deed and moreover, the Land Tribunal also considered the fact that the lands settled by Hanumantharaya Gounder (deceased) in favour of his mother Chinnammal, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ first petitioner/third respondent and the second petitioner/fourth respondent and also the extent retained by the said Hanumantharaya Gounder which could not be considered as coming within the holding of first petitioner/third respondent's father and the Land Tribunal referred to the fact that an extent of 154 acres ought to have been exempted as per Section 73 and 3(22) of the Act since they were fruit bearing trees and other varieties planted before 1959 and in this regard, the Land Tribunal placed reliance on the report of the Special Deputy Tahsildar who inspected the lands. 5.Apart from the above, dissatisfied with the order of the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur, the Principal Commissioner and the Commissioner of Land Reforms authorised the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram to file a special revision petition as per Section 83 of the Act before the third respondent/ Special Appellate Land Tribunal and the revision was taken on file as S.R.P.No.15 of 1999 after condoning the delay and during the pendency of the said revision petition, the writ petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 were brought on record at the behest of the first respondent based on the settlement deed executed in favour of the first petitioner/third respondent and the second petitioner/fourth respondent and later, the mother of the petitioners 1 and 2 expired on 01.5.2001 and therefore, the petitioners/ respondents 3 to 5 were brought on record as legal representatives and later the third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal had allowed the revision to the extent pertaining to the lands settled in favour of Chinnammal as per the settlement deed dated 22.7.1959 except the land in Survey No.60 in the aforesaid document and in other aspects, rejected the same. 6.The specific stand of the writ petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 is that the Authorised Officer/first respondent, as per Rule 9 of the Land Reforms Rules, 1962, must obtain necessary information as per manner prescribed but the Authorised Officer/first respondent recorded the statement of Village Administrative Officer and came to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 was not established and the Authorised Officer/first respondent should have seen that lands comprised in Survey No.69/4 were set apart for 'Samadhi' and that the land comprised in Survey No.69/8 was unfit for cultivation and that the land comprised in Survey No.71/3 was a house site and not an agricultural land. The Appellate Tribunal elaborately dealt with these aspects and held that these lands should have been excluded from the holdings. But, the third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal came to a wrong conclusion that the claim of the petitioners was not established and as a matter of fact, the third respondent/Tribunal had not appreciated the fact that Narayanapuram is situated contiguous to Alasanthapuram and that lands settled in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 formed part of the entire extent of 188.80 acres and this conclusion is an error apparent on the face of record which needs to be corrected and therefore, prays for allowing the writ petition to promote https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ substantial cause of justice. 7.It is to be pointed out that the first respondent/Authorised Officer and Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram, by his order dated 02.9.1994, has stated that Maikanna Gounder, son of Lakshmana Gounder residing at Alasanthapuram Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk of North Arcot Ambedkar District has come under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act No.17 of 1970 and the detailed enquiry has revealed that he holds the lands at Alasanthapuram and Simukampattu Villages to an extent of 188.80 ordinary acres equivalent to 55.969 standard acres as on 15.2.1970 and that the land owner attended enquiry and deposed that the properties were settled by his father- in-law through settlement and that his father-in-law died in the year 1964 and that his mother-in-law pre-deceased him during the year 1994. 8.However, the land owner had not produced the original settlement deed of his father-in-law and as on 15.2.1970 the total number of the owner's family was only 5 and that the said Maikanna Gounder though promised to produce the return in Form-2 on 14.12.92 has neither turned up for enquiry nor he filed the return in Form No.2 as required under the Act and moreover, a final opportunity by means of the notice dated 11.1.1993 was issued to the said land owner, who refused to receive the registered post letter and that the said registered letter was sent "returned undelivered" and another intimation letter dated 27.4.1995 was sent through Special Revenue Inspector (Land Reforms) of Vellore for causing service and the Special Revenue Inspector in his N.Dis 52/93 dated 15.5.93 had reported that the land owner refused to receive the intimation sent for enquiry and thereafter, several notices dated 6.8.93, 17.2.94, 7.3.94 and 22.4.94 were sent through registered post but the same were returned and finally a notice in Form No.4 was issued to the land owner as per Section 9(1) of the Act and the land owner was directed to attend the enquiry on 6.6.94 at Villupuram and since the land owner, by his letter dated 3.6.94, informed that he could not attend the enquiry at Villupuram due to ill health and requested for adjournment and to post the further enquiry at Vaniyambadi and even though the enquiry was adjourned to 24.6.94 at Vaniyambadi, he had not attended the enquiry and sent intimation that due to ill health he could not attend the enquiry at Vaniyambadi and requested for adjournment and again the enquiry was posted to 13.7.94 and intimation sent through registered post was not received by the land owner. Even on 13.7.94 the land owner did not turn up for the enquiry at Vaniyambadi and the Village Administrative Officer of Alasanthapuram village appeared on 13.7.94 at Vaniyambadi and stated that the land owner had got an extent of 188.80 acres of land at Alasanthapuram and Simakampattu villages. As the land owner was evading appearance to attend the enquiry, as seen from the material records it was presumed that he had no objection to the information furnished in the notice in From No.4 served on 18.6.94 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accordingly, the total holding of the land owner (Maikanna Gounder) was determined as below: Extent Ord. Acres Std. Acres Holding of the land owner 188.80 55.969 ii) Ceiling area admissible 15.000 ------------------------------------ surplus 40.969 ------------------------------------ and as such, he was requested to furnish a list of surplus land to an extent of 40.969 standard acres within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the surplus lands would be selected suo-motu as per Section 10(3) of the Act and draft statement as per Section 18(1) of the Act would be issued thereto. 9.As against the order passed by the first respondent/ Authorised Officer, the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) dated 2.9.94 the said Rathinammal wife of Maikanna Gounder (deceased) has preferred an appeal in No.28 of 1997 before the second respondent/Land Tribunal and that the said appeal was allowed on 11.12.1997 by the second respondent/Land Tribunal inter alia holding that 'there were five families (units) existing as on 15.2.70, the date of commencement of the Act, and due shares shall be allotted to them and the total extent available in this case was 55.96 standard acres only and subsequently the order of the first respondent/ Authorised Officer dated 02.9.1997 was set aside. 10.The second respondent/Land Tribunal, while passing orders in Appeal No.28 of 1997, had observed that Hanumantharaya Gounder, the original land owner, had two grand daughters as on 1959 at the time of settlement. But, after four years another daughter was born to Mrs.Rathinammal, the daughter of said Hanumantharaya Gounder and he made a provision for her in the settlement deed as per document No.2161/59 and as per the settlement, the settlees were given life time enjoyment and the properties shall devolve upon the children born to them and to the legal heirs as per law and the grand daughters partitioned the properties mentioned in the settlement deed and further, the said Hanumantharaya Gounder expired in the year 1964 and retained an extent of 47.67 acres of land for himself and settled 16.58 acres of land in favour of his mother and this extent shall be clubbed with their retained portions of Hanumantharaya Gounder and at the time of his death, the Hanumantharaya Gounder held an extent of 64.25 acres of land and this extent shall be divided among the surviving legal heirs and he had left behind daughter Mrs.Rathinammal and his wife Mrs.Nagammal. But they were not provided with any properties even though Mrs.Rathinammal was given life estate as per the document No.2161/59 settlement deed and moreover, Hanumantharaya Gounder's wife was not at all allotted any property in any one of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ settlement deeds and therefore, the properties available with Hanumantharaya Gounder shall be divided between his wife Nagammal and Rathinammal and Nagammal died in the year 1984 and both of them were alive on the date of commencement of the Act and they ought to be treated as individual units but the first respondent/Authorised Officer clubbed the entire extent into one and initiated proceedings against Maikanna Gounder who was not at all given any absolute ownership over the property as per the settlement deed 2161/59 and apart from the above, an extent of 40.75 acres of land mentioned in patta No.60 in Alahanthapuram village stood in the name of Nagammal and the said Nagammal sold the lands by means of registered documents and when the patta stood in the name of Nagammal her name was left out and her holdings were clubbed and the land ceiling proceedings were initiated against Maikanna Gounder, who was neither a legal heir nor an absolute owner of the land and this action of the first respondent/Authorised Officer was not correct and Rathinammal was the legal heir of the Hanumantharaya Gounder and in her name patta No.114 of Alasanthapuram village stood in respect of some of the lands and therefore, Nagammal and Rathinammal should be treated as separate units and equal shares should be allotted to them. 11.It is to be noticed that the Principal Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai by his proceedings in Ref.No.H1/984/98 (L) Reference dated .. 10.98 has authorised the first respondent/Authorised Officer and Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram to file a Special Revision Petition under Section 83 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 as amended before the third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai as against the order of the second respondent/Land Tribunal, Thanjavur passed in LTCMA.No.28 of 1997 dated 11.12.1997. It also transpires that the first respondent/Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) has filed M.P.No.143 of 1998 to condone the delay of 166 days in preferring the Special Revision Petition against the orders dated 11.2.1997 of the second respondent/Land Tribunal made in LTCMA.No.28 of 1997 and the third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal has condoned the said delay of 166 days and allowed M.P.No.143 of 1998 and further directed to number the main revision petition, if it is in order and post the same for hearing on 28.4.1999. 12.In the Special Revision Petition No.15 of 1999 filed by the first respondent/Authorised officer and Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), the third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal has framed as many as 8 points for determination and they are as follows: "1.Whether the second respondent herein by name Rathinammal and her husband Maikanna Gounder have got only the right of enjoyment in the lands settled by Hanumantharaya Gounder under the settlement deed dated 22.7.59 registered as Document No.2161 of 1959 and whether the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lands covered by this settlement deed dated 22.7.59 registered as Document No.2161/59 cannot be taken as the land held by the landowner Maikanna Gounder as he was only a limited owner or a life estate holder and whether therefore the lands covered by this settlement deed dated 22.7.59 cannot be taken into account for the purpose of fixing the ceiling and determining the surplus land of the landowner Maikanna Gounder? 2.Whether the lands covered by the settlement deed dated 22.7.59 executed by Hanumantharaya Gounder in favour of one Chinnammal and registered as Document No.2157/1959 have been included in the holdings of the landowner Maikanna Gounder and whether the lands covered by the settlement deed dated 22.7.59 registered as Document No.2157 of 1959 have to be excluded from the holdings of the landowner Maikanna Gounder? 3.Whether the land in Survey No.69/4 of Alasanthapuram village is a "samathi" and whether the said land should be excluded from the holdings of the landowner Maikanna Gounder? 4.Whether the land in Survey NO.69/8 of Alasanthapuram village is unfit for cultivation and whether it has to be excluded from the holdings of the landowner Maikanna Gounder? 5.Whether the land in Survey No.71/3 of Alasanthapuram village is a house site and whether it has to be excluded from the holdings of the landowner Maikanna Gounder? 6.Whether the lands in Survey Nos.27/1, 20/1, 20/2, 48/2, 20/3A, 47/2A and 48/4 belonged to Vijayalakshmi and Jayalakshmi by virtue of a settlement deed dated 22.7.59 executed by Hanumantharaya Gounder and registered as Document No.2155 of 1959 and whether the Authorised Officer of Land Reforms at Villupuram erred in including these items in the holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder? 7.Whether the land in Survey Nos.3/2 of Alasanthapuram village is a mango thope and whether the lands in Survey Nos.27/1, 8/3, 31 4/1, 25, 16/2, 26 and 33 of Alasanthapuram village are coconut thopes and whether the lands in Survey No.75/3 of Alasanthapuram village are mango, palmyra and tamarind thopes and whether as such these items should be exempted under Section 73 (vii) of the Act? 8.To what relief is the petitioner entitled? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13.In regard to Point No.2 the third respondent/Tribunal has observed that on a perusal of the settlement deed, registered as document No.2157/59 it finds that Hanumantharaya Gounder has settled the lands in Survey No.75/3, measuring 2.34 acres, Survey No.75/3 measuring 3.97 acres, Survey No.69/8 measuring 3.06 acres, Survey No.62/1 measuring 5.90 acres and Survey No.60 measuring 1.31 acres and that the first respondent/Authorised Officer has included Survey No.75/1 measuring 2.35 acres in the retainable holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder and likewise, the land in Survey No.75/3 measuring 3.96 acres has been included in the retainable holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder and the land in Survey No.69/8, measuring 3.08 acres has been shown as the surplus land of the land owner and moreover, the land in Survey No.62/1 measuring a total extent of 5.90 acres has been split up into two portions and one measuring 2.57 in Survey No.62/1 has been shown in the retainable holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder and the other portion measuring 3.35 acres in Survey No.62/1 has been shown in the surplus holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder and that the land in the Survey No.60 measuring 1.31 acres has not at all been included in any one of the holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder and ultimately the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that except the land in Survey No.60 all the remaining lands in Survey No.75/1 measuring 2.35, Survey No.75/3 measuring 3.06 acres, Survey No.69/8 measuring 3.08 acres and Survey No.62/1 measuring a total extent of 5.90 acres of Alasanthapuram Village have to be excluded from the holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder as these lands belonged to Chinnammal, and the first respondent/Authorised Officer has been directed to exclude these lands from the holdings of the land owner. 14.As regards the Point No.3, the third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal has observed that 'nowhere in the adangal extract it is stated that there is a 'Samathi' in Survey No.69/4 and from the adangal extract it is seen that agricultural crops like paddy and sugarcane have been raised in Survey No.69/4 of Alasanthapuram village and therefore, it has come to the definite conclusion that land in Survey No.69/4 of Alasanthapuram is not a 'Samathi' but it is only an agricultural land and the land in Survey No.69/4 measuring an extent of 6.82 acres of Alasanthapuram village cannot be excluded on the ground that it is a 'Samathi'. 15.Coming to the Point No.4, the third respondent/Tribunal has observed that 'in the adangal extract for fasli 1404 corresponding to the English year, crops like sugarcane and paddy have been raised in Survey No.69.8 measuring 3.08 acres and therefore, it has held that the land in Survey No.69/8 of Alasanthapuram village is unfit for cultivation and it has to be included in the holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder. 16.The third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal, while answering Point No.5 has observed that 'not a scrap of paper has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ placed