Thiru D.Srinivasa Naidu (deceased) rep. By his legal heirs 1.S.Balachander 2.S.Vijayakumar v. The Assistant Commissioner, (Land Reforms), Erode & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 17 .09.2009CoramTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAOANDTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPALW.P.No.11469 of 2000 andW.M.P.No.16418 of 2000Thiru D.Srinivasa Naidu (deceased)rep. By his legal heirs1.S.Balachander and2.S.Vijayakumar .. Petitioners vs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner, (Land Reforms), Erode.2.The Land Tribunal, Thanjavur.3.The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Santhome, Chennai-4. .. RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for therecords relating to the order of the Land Reforms Special AppellateTribunal 3rd respondent herein in Special Revision Petition No.57/98,dated 05.01.2000 and quash the same.For petitioner : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, S.C. For M/s.Silambanan & Associates For Respondents : Mrs.Malarvizhi Udayakumar Special Government PleaderORDERM.VENUGOPAL,J.The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying forissuance of writ of certiorari in calling for the records in regardto the order of the third respondent Tribunal dated 05.01.2000 inSpecial Revision Petition No.57 of 1998 and to quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The third respondent, while passing orders in the revision,has granted 'an exemption to an extent of 315 acres for coffeeplantation as per Section 73(vi) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Actand also allowed an exclusion in respect of lands used for non-agricultural purposes under Section 3(22) of the Act to an extent of45.55 acres as described in the Authorised Officer of Land Reforms,Coimbatore's Inspection Notes dated 26.09.1991 and in other aspects,rejected the claim of the land owner for exemption of growing fueltrees and resultantly, allowed the revision petition accordingly.'Facts of the case:3.The father of the petitioners D.Srinivasa Naidu as land ownerhas held an extent of 611.55 ordinary acres of land equivalent to223.228 standard acres of land as on 01.03.72 being the date ofcommencement of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act. In Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette dated 28.11.73 a draft statement as per Section 10(1) of the Act has been published proposing to declare an extent of534.05 ordinary acres equivalent to 192.228 standard acres of land assurplus. The father of the petitioners while alive has been servedwith the draft statement on 07.12.73 and he filed his objectionpetition on 04.01.1974. In the objection petition, the land owner hasclaimed exemption for the entire extent of 61.55 acres of land as'coffee plantation' under Section 73(vi) of the Act. The AuthorisedOfficer, on enquiry and inspection, has negatived the contention thatthe entire extent of 611.55 acres is coffee plantation and held thatonly an extent of 83.00 acres has been covered by the coffeeplantation and has exempted the same as per Section 73(vi) of theAct. Besides the coffee plantation there has been an orchard to anextent of 4.25 acres planted after 01.07.59 for which no exemptionhas been granted under Section 73(vii) of the Act. The buildings,roads, swamps, etc., in the lands measuring an extent of 15.44 acreshas been excluded as per Section 3(22) of the Act. After allowing anextent of 15 standard acres of land as ceiling area for the landowner, net surplus has been worked out as 475.61 ordinary acresequivalent to 170.403 standard acres of land and accordingly, anorder dated 20.05.77 has been passed under Section 10(5) of the Act.4.Dissatisfied with the order dated 20.05.77, the land owner haspreferred C.M.A.No.19 of 77 before the Land Tribunal, Ooty and thesaid civil miscellaneous appeal has been allowed by the Tribunalobserving that the land owner is entitled to get the copy of thereport of the local officer and remitted the matter for freshdisposal and the land owner, upon being furnished with the copies ofthe Notes of Inspection, has filed his objections on 26.06.78. Theprime contention of the land owner has been that the coffeeplantation in most parts have not been maintained properly andconsequently, they have been in abandoned stage requiring improvementin parts and at the same time, the area which had been abandoned, wasused for growing fuel trees in about 400 acres and they have been in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ existence from February 1970 and continued to be so, and an extent of435.86 acres has been classified as jungle by the land owner whichrefers to fuel trees but the said contention was not accepted.5.The Chairman of the Land Board, Madras, after inspecting thelands on 25.01.77, has granted permission on 27.08.77 to the landowner in respect of 16.60 ordinary acres equivalent to 6.640 standardacres as per Section 31 of the Act for future development with acondition that the land should be developed as plantation within thespecified period. On 26.12.78 a revised order as per Section 10(5) ofthe Act has been passed holding an extent of 459.01 as ordinary acresequivalent to 163.763 standard acres of land as surplus.6.As against the revised order dated 26.12.78, the land ownerfiled an appeal in C.M.A.No.22 of 1979 before the Land Tribunal, Ootyand the Land Tribunal allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal byremitting the matter for fresh disposal and permitted the land ownerto adduce fresh evidence, if need be, to substantiate his case.Thereafter, on issuance of fresh notices to the land owner, anenquiry has been conducted on 25.10.80 and the land owner and hiscounsel have put forward the objections. In the meanwhile, the LandBoard, as per proceedings dated 10.12.83, has cancelled thepermission given to the land owner as against which the land ownerfiled W.P.No.5578 of 1984 before this Court and later the said writpetition has been transferred to the Special Tribunal, which directedin T.R.P.No.105 of 1991 on 01.11.1993 requiring the AuthorisedOfficer and the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Coimbatore tosubmit a report to the Special Appellate Tribunal in regard to thestage of the matter. By means of an assessment order passed inC.M.A.No.22 of 1979 dated 13.08.79, the Tribunal has issued a noticerequiring the land owner to appear for an enquiry on 10.05.93 and13.05.93 respectively as per Section 10(5) of the Act. On 04.04.94 anorder has been passed under Section 10(5) of the Act and the landowner has filed an appeal as per Section 78 of the Act before theLand Tribunal. However, the Tamil Nadu Land Reform Special AppellateTribunal, in T.R.P.No.105 of 91 dated 02.08.94, directed the LandTribunal to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. The Land Tribunal, Thanjavur, whiledisposing the LTCMA.No.13/94 dated 30.12.96, has allowed thefollowing exemptions:---------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Details Extent Provision under which in exemption and exclusion ordinary ordered acres---------------------------------------------------------------------1. Extent of Coffee 400 S.73(vi) Plantation exempted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Extent covered by 15.44 S.3(22) building garden roads and swamp area3. Extent grown with 196.11 S.73(viii) fuel ---------Total 611.55---------7.As against the said order, the Assistant Commissioner, LandReforms has filed Special Revision Petition before the thirdrespondent, Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal.8.According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners,the third respondent Tribunal in its order should have held that theentire extent of 611 acres is eligible for exemption as per Section73(vi) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act for coffee plantation andas a matter of fact, the third respondent has not appreciated theclaim for exemption of 200 acres of fuel trees as per Section 73(viii) of the Act which is without prejudice to the claim that anentire extent of 611 acres, comprises of Coffee Estate is eligiblefor exemption under Section 73(vi) of the Act and if the crucial dateis on 01.03.1972, then, on that date, the entire land has either beenused for coffee plantation or has been capable of being used ascoffee plantation and in this regard, the third respondent has notappreciated the ambit of Section 3(22) of the Act in a properprospective and moreover, the shade trees and fuel trees are one andthe same and only after the fuel trees are grown to a certain height,the actual coffee plants will be grown and indeed the growing of fueltrees is part of coffee cultivation and this has not been properlyappreciated by the third respondent and added further, the sale deeddated 29.09.1967 will establish that the entire estate is a coffeeestate and the third respondent has committed an error in holdingthat a combined reading of Exs.A.13 and A.14 pointed out that only anextent of 315 acres has been used as coffee plantation as on01.03.1972 and also that the third respondent is not correct incoming to the conclusion that with a view to derive the benefit ofexemption as per Section 73(vi) and 74(viii) the land owner must notonly prove that the land in respect of which the exemption has beensought for, was converted into coffee plantation or fuel trees butalso must show as on 01.03.1972 that the said lands have been usedfor coffee plantation and also used exclusively for growing fueltrees and that if the land owner fails to establish the same, then hewill not be entitled to the exemptions sought for and therefore,prays for allowing the writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleadersubmits that the third respondent/Appellate Tribunal has taken noteof the Inspection Notes dated 27.11.80 of the Authorised Officer ofLand Reforms, Coimbatore viz., Ex.A.13 which indicates that an extentof 203 acres has been cultivated with coffee plantation with crops 10years above and an extent of 27 acres has been cultivated with coffeecrops aged 7 years and above and an extent of 66 acres has beencultivated with coffee crops aged 2 years and above and totalling anextent of 2.96 acres out of an extent of 334.30 acres has beeninspected by him as one covered by coffee plants and also Ex.A.14Report dated 14.4.81 of the Assistant Coffee Inspector of CoffeeBoard shows that the deceased land owner has registered an extent of38 acres in the year 1970 for coffee plantation and further heapplied for registration of an extent of 300 acres and in the year1981 the Assistant Coffee Marketing Officer has found only 400 acresplanted with coffee crops and these crops were aged less than fiveyears to 14 years and the said officer has seen the coffee plantationto an extent of 315 acres on 14.4.81 with crops aged 10 to 14 yearsand on a careful analysis of the entire available material evidenceon record, the Tribunal has allowed the Special Revision PetitionNo.57/98 by setting aside the order dated 30.12.96 in LTCMA.No.13 of1994 passed by the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur and has held thatexemption is granted under Section 73(vi) of the Tamil Nadu LandReforms Act for coffee plantation to an extent of 315 acres and hasallowed exclusion for the lands used for non-agricultural purposesunder Section 3(22) of the Act to an extent of 45.55 acres asdescribed in the Notes of Inspection of the Authorised Officer ofLand Reforms, Coimbatore dated 26.09.91 and in other aspects hasrejected the claim of the land owner and has also directed theAuthorised Officer to take further action in accordance with law andthis order is a reasoned one and the same need not be interferedwith.10.The contention of the petitioners is that Dodda Moyar Estateis and has been coffee estate wayback from 1948 and as per Section 3(35) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land)Act, 1961 all plantations are to be exempted from the purview of theAct under Section 73(viii) and moreover, the plantations' Directoryof the Southern India published by the United Planters' Associationhas referred to the Dodda Moyar Estate as a Coffee Estate of 612acres long prior to the commencement of the Act. Moreover, the saledeed of the land owner Srinivasa Naidu (deceased) refers to theproperty as a coffee estate. 11.The land owner D.Srinivasa Naidu (deceased) has filed hisobjection statement on 04.1.74. Again he has filed his objectionstatement dated 16.6.78. Significantly, in the second objectionstatement, the land owner has taken the plea that the coffee estatein most parts had not been maintained properly resulting in an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ abandoned state, awaiting for improvements in parts and the abandonedareas have been used growing fuel trees and in around 400 acres thesaid trees have been grown and have been in existence as in February1970 and continue to be so and as a matter of fact, the surveyor whosurveyed the area as per the direction given by the AuthorisedOfficer in the plant has classified an extent of 435.86 acres asjungle which only refers to the fuel trees and therefore, theexemption as per Section 73(viii) of the Act will have to be granted.12.The land owner (deceased) has purchased the coffee estate asper sale deed dated 29.9.67. According to the learned counsel for thepetitioners, the shade trees are said to have been planted in thecoffee plantation to protect from sun and to give good growth and theage of the trees will reveal that the estate is an old coffee estate.13.On the side of petitioners, it is submitted that an extent of200 acres is of fuel trees and also an extent of 70 acres has beencovered with swamps, rocks, roads etc. At this juncture, it ispertinent to point out that the land owner (deceased), in hisevidence dated 22.06.76 before the Authorised Officer of the LandReforms, Coimbatore, has, inter alia, stated that the character ofthe Dodda Moyar Estate has not been changed from a coffee estate andthat in an extent of 211 acres he has replanted the estate and thebalance extent as old coffee plant and he has not used the estate orconverted the estate with a view to cultivate any other crops exceptthe plantation and in an extent of 123 acres shade trees have beenplanted and moreover, there are old coffee plants in the said 123acres. Again on 11.1.94, the land owner in his deposition has statedthat the then Authorised Officer one K.Subramaniam has inspected his334.30 acres of land on 27.11.80 and as a matter of fact, on 01.4.81the Assistant Coffee Board Inspector has visited the estate andinspected the fields to ascertain the correct age of the coffeeplantation and in short, the entire estate is planted with eithercoffee or cardamom and because of the assumption of Management Actwhich has been enforced in respect of the Estate he has beenprevented from nursing the coffee already in existence. But the saidManagement Act has been revoked in the year 1967 and soon after hispossession he has planted the fuel trees in about 160 acres, whichare 40 years old and with the Collector's permission, the trees havebeen cut down and as such, prays for exemption being granted as perSection 73 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act.14.In the third objection dated 25.10.80 the land owner hasstated that 200 acres is fuel trees and the same has been inexistence as on 6.4.1960. Interestingly, the land owner, before theAuthorised Officer, has not mentioned about the user of the lands ascoffee plantation in entirety or as coffee plantation with fueltrees. Thus, there appears to be a divergent stand taken by the landowner in his deposition on 22.6.76 and 11.1.1994 respectively. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15.It is not out of place for this Court to point out thedecision in Sethuraman and others V. The Authorised Officer, LandReforms, Ramnad at Madurai 1978 2 MLJ at page 230 wherein it is interalia held that 'in view of the expression "used exclusively forgrowing fuel trees", no spontaneous growth and sporadic growth offuel trees will warrant the invocation of clause 8, Section 73 of theAct, for the potentialities of the land for being converted intocultivable lands cannot be ruled out.' Also in the decision in TheState of Madras represented by the Collector of Thanjavur V.K.G.Ramani Iyer and others 1974 2 MLJ at page 220 it is observed asfollows:"In order to derive the benefit conferred bysection 73(vii) of the Madras Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, an applicantmust not only prove that the land in respect ofwhich exemption is sought for was converted on orbefore 1st day of July, 1959 into an orchard topeor arecanut garden, but he must further show thatfrom the date of conversion, the said land hadcontinued to be maintained as an orchard tope,arecanut garden till such time the exemption isasked for."16.Merely because the sale deed refers as "Dodda Moyar Estate"the same is not a proof that the lands in the estate have been usedonly as coffee plantation.17.In the decision the Authorised Officer, (Land Reforms),Kancheepuram V. Deivayanai Ammal AIR 1991 NOC 51 (MAD.) it is heldthat 'Merely keeping the lands waste after cutting the fuel treeswill not make the lands agricultural in order to withdraw theexemption and a clear intention to treat the lands as agriculturaland not to use the lands for the purpose of growing fuel trees shouldbe in evidence and unless such evidence is available exemption couldnot be withdrawn.'18.In the decision M.V.S.Muthuvel V. The Authorised Officer,Land Reforms, Kovilpatti AIR 1980 2 MLJ 168 it is observed that 'theland owner raised tope subsequent to the relevant date of enactmentand therefore, he is not eligible to claim exemption.'19.It is useful to refer to Section 3(22) of the Tamil NaduLand Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act, 1961 which reads asfollows:"3(22) "land" means agricultural land, that is tosay, land which is used or capable of being usedfor agricultural purposes or purposes subservientthereto and includes forest land, pasture landplantation and tope, but does not include house-site or land used exclusively for non- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ agricultural purposes;"Further, Section 3(35) of the Act enjoins thus:"3(35) "plantation" means any land used forgrowing all or any of the following, namelycardamom, cinchona, coffee, rubber or tea;"20.One cannot ignore an important fact that the petitioners ortheir deceased father/land owner have not challenged the Ex.A.13Inspection Notes dated 27.11.80. At this stage, the learned counselfor the petitioners submits that the Authorised Officer of the LandReforms, Coimbatore has covered only an extent of 334.30 acres andhas given the report inter alia stating that out of total extent of430.25 acres in Survey No.248 he has covered an extent of 153 acresand he has not inspected the balance portion which is covered partlywith young coffee plants and the remaining portion with forestinfested with wild animals adjoining the Mudumalai wild lifesanctuary and therefore, the said report is only a partial one andmuch importance need not be given to it. In regard to the SurveyNo.231/1 out of 142.61 acres an extent of 81 acres has been coveredby coffee plantations aged about 10 to 12 years. But the petitionersfather/land owner has claimed that they have been in existence forthe past 15 years and an extent of 16 acres has been covered bycoffee plants aged 7 to 8 years and further an extent of 29 acres hasbeen covered by coffee plants aged 2 years old and the balanceportion has been covered by swamp which is lying waste, as mentionedin the report of the Authorised Officer of Land Reforms. Moreover, asregards as Survey No.223/2 out of 38.69 acres the Authorised Officer(Land Reforms), Coimbatore in the report has mentioned that an extentof 26 acres has been covered by coffee plants aged about 10 to 12years and an extent of 9 acres has been covered by coffee plants agedabout 2 years and the balance has been covered by swamp and theextent covered by coffee plants in all the survey numbers have beencovered by shade trees more than 20 years old and the land owner hasinformed him that the old coffee plants have been uprooted andreplanted with new one and further has shown a few old coffee plantsaged 15 years standing in few places etc. and that he has covered anextent of 334.30 acres and that he shall inspect the balance portionin February 1981 and directed the matter to be referred to the CoffeeBoard for ascertaining the correct age of the existing coffee plantsin the aforesaid survey numbers. Suffice it to point out that anextent of 203 acres has been cultivated with coffee plantation withcrops 10 years and above, and 27 acres has been cultivated withcoffee crops 7 years and above, an extent of 66 acres has beencultivated with crops aged 2 years and thus totalling an extent 296acres out of the 334.30 acres has been covered by the coffee plantsduly inspected by the officer concerned. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21.The Assistant Coffee Inspector of Coffee Board, Gudalur inhis report Ex.A.14 dated 14.4.1981 has stated the following inrespect of M/s.Dodda Moyar Estate, Thorapally:"With reference to the above I am furnishing herewith the particularscollected from M/s.Doddamoyar Estate, Thorapally for needful.Total area of the Estate611.75Planted Areas:-(1) Sandamam (Arabica)30.00 acres(2) Robusta 370.00 " -------- 400Age Group(1) Sandamam (Arabica) 30.00 0 to 5 years(2) Arabica 5.00 15 years old(3) Robusta 50.00 8 to 10 years(4) Robusta 315.00 10 to 14 years --------- 400.00 ---------Cardamom 50.00Abandoned 161.55 --------Grand Total 161.55 --------Further there is no record at M/s.Doddamoyar Estate for theRegistered and planted Area in 1969 to 70."Also it appears that the land owner Srinivasan (deceased) hasregistered an extent of 38 acres in R.C.No.6251 dated 24.12.1970 andfurther he has applied for registration in regard to an extent of 300acres. Therefore, it is quite evident that an extent of 315 acresonly has been used as coffee plantation as on 1st March 1972 and assuch, we are of the opinion that the exemption is to be availed asper Section 73(vi) of the Act only in respect of 315 acres of coffeeplantation alone.22.As regards the claim of exemption for fuel trees, it is to bementioned significantly that Section 73(viii) of the Tamil Nadu LandReforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act refers to 'any land usedexclusively for growing fuel trees on the date of the commencement ofthis Act' and therefore, it is crystal clear that exclusive user isvisualised and in the present case on hand, there is no proof toestablish that a specified area has been used exclusively for growingfuel trees, in our considered opinion. As a matter of fact, thepetitioners' father late D.Srinivasa Naidu, as land owner, has notsaid anything before the Authorised Officer that a particular area https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ out of 611.55 acres has been exclusively used for growing fuel trees.Coming to the contention that shade trees are being grown in thecoffee plantation and if they wither, they have been used as fueltrees and as such, exemption is to be granted to an extent of 200acres as claimed by the petitioners late father. It is to be borne inmind that Section 73(viii) enjoins 'any land used exclusively forgrowing fuel trees on the date of commencement of the Act so as toavail the benefit of exemption' and therefore, the shade trees grownin the coffee plantation cannot be granted the exemption as per theingredients of Section 73(viii) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act.23.While dealing with the claim for exclusion of certain non-agricultural lands as per Section 3(22) of the Tamil Nadu LandReforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, the petitioners father on25.10.80, in his objection, has stated before the Authorised Officerof the Land Reforms at Coimbatore to the effect that an extent of 70acres has been covered with swamps, rocks, roads and area covered bytelephone lines, electric lines. It is not out of place to make arelevant mention that as per Section 3(22) of the Act any jungle orforest growth in an extent of 611.55 acres, like the one in the onhand, is not to be considered as land used for non-agriculturalpurposes. Moreover, the Authorised Officer, in his inspection on 26thSeptember 1991, has stated that in Survey No.248 an extent of 2 acres76 cents has been covered by road and foot path, an extent of 4 acres49 cents has been covered with huts and bungalow etc. and an extentof 18 acres as swamp and in Survey No.233/2 an extent of 3.6 acres ofswamp, in Survey No.233/1 an extent of 16.61 acres of swamp, thustotalling an extent of 45.55 acres has been covered with road, footpath, huts, bungalow, garden etc. and swamp and therefore, theexemption as per Section 3(22) of the Act can be granted only to anextent of 45.55 acres as mentioned supra.24.On an overall consideration of arguments on both sides andalso by taking note of the entire gamut of the facts andcircumstances of the case in a detailed and cumulative fashion, wecome to the conclusion that the order of the thirdrespondent/Tribunal in allowing the exemption of 315 acres for coffeeplantation as per Section 73(vi) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act,and granting exclusion of land to an extent of 45.55 acres as perSection 3(22) of the Act are a valid and correct one and the same donot suffer from any serious infirmities or patent illegalities andconsequently, the writ petition sans merits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25.For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissedwithout costs. Consequently, the order passed by the thirdrespondent/Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai isaffirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition isclosed.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.RegistrarSglTo1.The Assistant Commissioner, (Land Reforms), Erode.2.The Land Tribunal, Thanjavur.3.The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Santhome, Chennai-4.+ 1 CC to M/s.B.Neducheziyan,Advocate,SR.47903+ 1 CC to Government Pleader,SR.48425W.P.NO.11469 OF 2000SR(CO)EM/1.10