C. Rajamanickam v. The Tamil Nadu Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal Santhome, Chennai – 600 004 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23.10.2009 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMW.P.Nos.15997 & 15998 of 1999C. Rajamanickam.. Petitioner in both the petitionsversus1.The Tamil Nadu Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal Santhome, Chennai – 600 004.2.The Land Tribunal Thanjavur3.The Authorized Officer and Asst. Commissioner Land Reforms, Tiruchirapalli4.The Director of Land ReformsEzhilagamChennai-600 005. .. Respondents in both the petitionsPrayer: Writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for issuance of Writ of 1) Certiorari to callfor the records in connection with the order of the 1st respondent inS.R.P. No.63 of 1992 dated 21.08.1998 and 6 of 1995 dated 21.08.1998and quash the same in W.P.15998/99 2) Certiorarified Mandamus callingfor the records of the 1st respondent in connected with the orderpassed is SRP.63/92 dated 21.8.98 quash the same and forbear the 1strespondent from proceeding with the enquiry as against the petitionerunder the Tamil Nadu land Reforms (fixation of ceiling on land) Actof 1961 Tamil Nadu Act 58/61) in (Wp.15997/99) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr.T.R. Rajagopal, Sr. Counsel for Mr. T.R. Rajaraman in both the petitions.For Respondents: Mrs.Malarvizhi UdayakumarSR 4 Special Government PleaderO R D E RT.S.SIVAGNANAM J.The above writ petitions have been filed by one C.Rajamanickam against the common order dated 21.08.1998 in a SpecialRevision Petition Nos. 63 of 1992 and 6 of 1995 onthe file of theTamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal (hereinafterreferred as Special Tribunal). SRP No. 63 of 1992 was filed by C.Rajamanickam under Section 83 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 581 of 1998 hereinafter referredto as the Act 58 of 1961, challenging the order passed by the LandTribunal in L.T.CMA No. 34 of 1990 dated 16.03.1992 which confirmsthe order dated 12.12.1989 passed by the Authorized Officer (LandReforms, Tiruchirapalli). SRP No. 6 of 1995 was filed by the Directorof Land Reforms under Sections 83 and 58 of 1961 to set aside theorder passed by the Authorized Officer (Land Reforms), Tiruchirapallidated 14.05.1972.2. The facts, which led to the filing of the said revisionpetitions are follows: One Chockalingam Chettiar was the owner of thelands which are the subject matter in the present case. TheAuthorized Officer determined the total holdings of the family as onthe crucial date i.e. 06.04.1960 and the total holdings of the familyconsisting of the land owner and his wife as 56.774 acres. Thisdetermination was made after allowing the ceiling of 30 standardacres for the family and 10 standard acres for his wife grantingexemption in respect of 1.78 standard acres. The Authorized Officerdetermined as surplus an extent of 5.505 standard acres under SectionI and 9.57.0 standard acres under Section VI and in all 15.704 acreswas determined as surplus. The land owner filed an appeal againstsuch determination which came to be dismissed by the Land Tribunal.The original land owner died on 05.09.1964 and the wife and daughterof the original land owner filed the revision petition before thiscourt in CRP No. 2508 of 1965 against the order of the Tribunal. ThisCourt, by order dated 08.01.1971 allowed the said Civil RevisionPetition with the observation that this court in CRP 2286 of 1966(Radhasamy Charitable Society, by its Secretary Vs. The AuthorisedOfficer, Cuddalore) held that 'where a gift is made to a femalemember, only for enjoyment of the property for life, without anypower of alienation, such person cannot be said to be a limited owneras defined in the Act and that the lands given to her for enjoyment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ personally, cannot be taken to be the holding of that person forpurpose of fixing her ceiling area and for acquiring the excess'.Based on the decision of this court in CRP 2508 of 1965 dated08.01.1971, the Authorized Officer fixed 5.504 standard acres assurplus under Section I. Subsequently, the Authorized Officer, byorder dated 15.05.1972, observed that this court has taken the standthat the Authorized Officer is empowered to declare the surplus landsunder Section 10(5) and Section 12, only if the person is alive onthe date of preparation of final statement and that it is notsufficient if the person had been alive on the notified date and thatthe Authorized Officer has no jurisdiction to fix the ceiling area ofa deceased person. Based on the said order, the Authorized Officerordered further action to be taken separately in respect of thepersons on whom the properties of the deceased land ownerChockalingam Chettiar have devolved. Based on such an order, freshproceedings were initiated under Act 17 of 1970 against the legalheirs of the deceased land owner. By order dated 22.7.1973, theAuthorized Officer held that since the land owner held only 8.095standard acres, which is below the ceiling limit, further proceedingswere dropped. It is stated that the proceeding dated 22.07.1973 isthe consequential proceeding to the earlier order dated 15.05.1972.Thereafter, the case was reopened based on a judgment of theHonorable Supreme Court in Bhikoba Shankar Vs. Mohan Lal Punchand,AIR 1982 SC 865. The Authorized Officer directed the deceased landowner to furnish a list of holdings as on 06.04.1960 and noticeswere issued to the legal heirs, since the land owner's wife passedaway in the meantime. An order under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act waspassed on 12.12.1989 and an extent of 15.070 standard acres wasdeclared as surplus in the hands of the land owner. The petitioner C.Rajamanickam, adopted son of the original land owner, filed an appealagainst the said order before the Land Tribunal in L.T.CMA 34 of 1990and the Land Tribunal, by order dated 16.03.1992 dismissed theappeal. As against the said order, SRP No. 63 of 1992 was filedbefore the Special Tribunal.3. Since a contention was raised that the subsequent reopeningof the proceedings cannot be done, as action was dropped by ordersdated 14.05.1972 and 22.07.73, the Director of the Land Reforms filedSRP No. 6 of 1995 praying before the Special Tribunal to invoke itssuo-motu power under Section 83 of the Act and to set aside the orderpassed by the Authorized Officer dated 14.05.1972 by whichproceedings against the land owner were dropped. It is stated thatthe SRP was filed to get over any technical objection which may beraised.4. The Special Tribunal heard both the revision petitionstogether and by a common order dated 21.08.1998, allowed SRP No. 6 of1995 and disposed of SRP 63 of 1992 by remanding the matter back tothe Authorized Officer to commence fresh proceedings after givingnotice to all persons interested. The Special Tribunal further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ observed that all the earlier proceedings dated 14.05.1972,22.07.1973 and 12.02.1989 and the order passed by the Land Tribunaldated 16.03.1992 were set aside. The correctness of the above ordersare assailed in the present writ petitions.5. Heard Mr. T.R. Rajagopoal, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.T.R. Rajaraman for the petitioner and Mrs. Malarvizhi Udayakumar,learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner wouldfirst contend that the earlier order, passed by this court inC.R.P.2508 of 1965, dated 08.01.1971, has become final and the orderof the Special Tribunal ought not to have been set aside and remandedfor fresh consideration. The next contention put forth by the learnedSenior Counsel is that SRP. No. 6 of 1995 which has been filed by thedepartment, challenging the order dated 14.05.1972 has been presentedafter a period of 20 years and the Special Tribunal ought not to haveentertained such a belated petition. It is further contended by thelearned Senior Counsel that there is no power for the SpecialTribunal to order for reopening the entire issue after theproceedings were dropped. The learned Senior Counsel would furthersubmit that the petitioner is the adopted son and the grand son ofthe original land owner. The adoption was on 09.02.1970 and the deedof adoption was registered on 20.03.1970 and the date of commencementof the Act was on 15.02.1970. It is further submitted that as on thenotified date i.e. 02.10.1970, there was a valid adoption and thesefactors were taken into consideration and thereafter the proceedingsdated 22.07.1973 came to be passed. The Tribunal ought not to havereopened the entire issue. Finally, the learned Senior Counsel wouldcontend that a draft statement has not been made for the purpose ofcalculating the ceiling area of the family holding on the date ofcommencement of Act. 7. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for therespondents would contend that the object of the enactment, namelyAct 58 of 1961, was to secure that the ownership and control of thematerial resources of the community are so distributed as best tosubserve the common good and that the operation of the economicsystem does not result in the concentration of wealth and means ofproduction to the common detriment. Since the Act seeks to achievesuch laudable object, the operation of various provisions of Actcannot be said to be rigid and when it is found that the proceedinghas been made erroneously, the Special Tribunal was justified ininvoking its suo-motu power under Section 83 of the Act so as to setaside the illegal order. Exercise of such power is reasonable andfair, keeping in mind the object of the enactment. Learned SpecialGovernment Pleader would further contend that SRP No. 6 of 1995 wasfiled before the Tribunal, requesting the Tribunal to invoke its suo-motu power only with the reason to get over any technical objectionwhich may be raised by relying upon the order dated 14.05.1972. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further contended that in the order dated 14.05.1972, it has beenstated that further action has to be separately taken against theperson on whom properties of late Chockalingam Chettiar had devolvedon his death. Therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader wouldcontend that there is no bar for the Tribunal to reopen the matterand direct the Authorized Officer to decide the matter afresh aftergiving notice to all the persons who may be interested. 8. Learned Special Government Pleader would further contend thatthe decision of the Hourable Supreme Court in AIR 1982 SC 865(Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal (dead) by Vs. Mohan Lal Punchand Tathed)would squarely apply to the facts of the present case, since thelegislation in the Maharashtra State as well as the Tamil Nadu Act 58of 1961 are in paramateria. As regards the plea raised by the learnedSenior Counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings are grosslydelayed, it is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleaderthat the fresh orders under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act were issuedonly after dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner in1989 and the petitioner filed an appeal before the Land Tribunalduring 1990 and the same was dismissed on 16.03.1992 against whichSRP No. 63 of 1992 has been filed. Learned Special Government Pleaderwould contend that the proceedings have been taken uninterruptedlyand time lapse is solely attributable to the petitioner by hisconduct in prolonging the matter by filing various petitions andtherefore there is no delay. On question of dropping all furtherproceedings, it is contended that since the order of the AuthorizedOfficer was erroneous, the petition was filed requesting the Tribunalto invoke suo-motu power to set aside such an order; that the basisfor reopening the proceedings is the order passed by the HonourableSupreme Court in AIR 1982 SC 865 (Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal (dead) byVs. Mohan Lal Punchand Tathed); that the law laid down by the SupremeCourt is binding upon the authorities; that the Tribunal in itsearlier order in SRP No. 91 of 1993 has elaborately gone into thisaspect and held that the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court AIR1982 SC 865 (Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal (dead) by Vs. Mohan Lal PunchandTathed) was considering the question whether the proceedingscommenced with filing of a return by a person holding, on theappointed day, land in excess of the ceiling area prescribed by theMaharashtra Ceiling Act would become infructuous and would have to bedropped, if such person dies before the notification regardingsurplus and possession of such surplus land is taken over by theauthorities concerned and the Honourable Supreme Court held thatproceedings would become infructuous. 9. On the 2nd issue, regarding dropping of the proceedings, it isto be noted that the order dated 15.05.1972 has been passed after thedecision of this court dated 07.01.1971 wherein it is held that theAuthorized Officer is empowered to declare the surplus lands underSection 10(5) and Section 12, only if the person is alive on the dateof preparation of final statement and that it is not sufficient if https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the person had been alive on the notified date and that theAuthorized Officer has no jurisdiction to fix the ceiling area of adeceased person. Based on that judgment, the Authorized Officerordered that further action to be taken separately in respect of thepersons on whom the properties of the deceased land owner lateChockalingam Chettiar had devolved on the date of the death. It isbased on such order dated 15.05.1972, subsequently, proceedings dated22.07.1973 came to be passed. In such proceedings, it was noted thatthe patta for the lands stands in the names of the land owner (Tmt.Thailammai Ammal) and the land owner's adopted son (Rajamanickam) andbased on a written statement filed by the land owner and thepartition deed dated 15.02.1979 between land owner and her adoptedson C. Rajamanickam, held that the land owner had only 8.095 standardacres which is below the ceiling limit. Therefore, it is to be notedthat the entire proceedings culminated in the order dated 22.07.1973based on adoption of Rajamanickam and it is to be seen that theresult of the proceedings was unconditional and the same cannot benow put against the department for initiating action. The HonourableSupreme Court has taken a decision while deciding the similar case inAIR 1982 SC 865 (Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal (dead) by Vs. Mohan LalPunchand Tathed)(Paras:13, 15, 18 & 19).10. From the above decision, it is seen that the proceedingshave to be continued and the surplus land in the hands of the landowner as on the appointed date should be determined and takenpossession in accordance with law and the legal heirs of the landowner are entitled to participate the hearing and the ceiling areahas to be determined as on the appointed date, even though suchperson is dead before determining the surplus and notified under theact. Therefore, in our view, the department was fully justified inapproaching the Tribunal by filing SRP No. 6 of 1995 for requestingthe Tribunal to exercise its suo-motu for revision.11. We have perused the order passed by the Tribunal and thepoints referred by the Tribunal on the definition of the limitedowner as defined in Section 3 (28) of the Act. As noted by theTribunal, this court, earlier in CRP No. 2508 of 1965 dated08.01.1971 did not go into the issues about the total holding, thesurplus holding, the holdings of the legal heirs etc. Further, it isto be noted from the explanation of Section 3 (28) of the Act, aperson who has a right to enjoy the land during his lifetime shall belimited to be deemed owner, notwithstanding that he has no power toalienate the land. This provision came to be inserted by amending Act39 of 1972 and it was given retrospective effect in terms of suchamendment. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Tribunal with regardto the explanation to Section 3 (28), that it is deemed to beoperational with effect from 06.04.1960 does not call for anyinterference. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. Next question raised by the learned Senior Counsel isregarding the inordinate delay in approaching the Tribunal. It is tobe noted that the proceedings are pending before Authorities and thefresh orders under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act were issued only afterdismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner in 1989 andaggrieved by the same, the petitioner had preferred an appeal beforethe Land Tribunal during 1990 and the Land Tribunal dismissed thesame by order dated 16.03.1992 as against which revision was filedbefore Special Tribunal in 1992. However, in view of the legalposition having been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court, thedepartment had filed a petition under Section 83 of the Act with arequest to the Tribunal to invoke it suo-motu power. Therefore, thephysical running of time from 1972 till 1995 when SRP No. 6 of 1995came to be filed, should not be taken for the purpose of computingthe time taken in the instant case, since the proceedings were beingagitated at various levels by the petitioner and thus the delay ifany, could be attributed only to the petitioner. The petition in SRPNo. 6 of 1995 was filed in order to get over any technical objectionwhich may be raised and further taking into consideration thedecision of Honourable Supreme Court with regard to law laid down onthe issue. Therefore, we hold that the department cannot be foundfault for approaching the Tribunal during 1995 by filing a petition.However, it is to be noted that the power vested with the SpecialTribunal under Section 83 could be exercised suo-motu or onapplication to call for to examine the order of the AuthorizedOfficer Land Reforms, Land Commissioner or Land Tribunal in respectof any proceeding as regards its correctness, legality etc and theTribunal is vested with power to modify, reverse, remand forreconsideration if the Tribunal found that there has been someirregularity in the proceedings. Therefore, the power vested uponthe Special Tribunal is very widely couched and even without apetition being filed by the department, in order to review, theTribunal can very well examine the correctness of the orders passedby the Authorized Officer or Land Tribunal while considering therevision petition which had been filed by the petitioner. Further,the Tribunal noted that all the legal heirs were not afforded anopportunity of hearing, since the Authorized Officer had enquiredonly the petitioner and not the other legal heirs, since the land haddevolved on the next generation of the other legal heirs, they mayalso to be entitled to hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal held thatsince the order passed under Section 9 (2)(b) was not a speakingorder, the same has to be interfered with. 13. For all the above reasons, we find that the order passed bythe Tribunal is valid in law and accordingly writ petitions aredismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ar Sd/- Asst.Registrar/True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar To1.The Tamil Nadu Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal Santhome, Chennai – 600 004.2.The Land Tribunal Thanjavur3.The Authorized Officer and Asst. Commissioner Land Reforms, Tiruchirapalli4.The Director of Land ReformsEzhilagam Chennai-600 005.+ 1 cc to Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, Advocate SR.55946. W.P.Nos.15997 & 15998 of 1999 BV(CO)EU 2.11.2009.