Krishnveniammal v. Asst. Commissioner (Land Reforms) & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29.7.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO andTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMWrit Petition No. 2166 of 2000andW.M.P. No. 3356 of 2000Krishnveniammal.. Petitionervs.1.The Asst. Commissioner (Land Reforms)Villupuram2.The Land TribunalThanjavurnow at Chennai3.The Tamil Nadu Land ReformsSpecial Appellate TribunalChennai... Respondents.Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingfor the issuance of the writ of Certiorari calling for the records ofthe third respondent – Tribunal relating to its order dated28.10.1999 passed in S.R.P. No. 12 of 1999 and quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr. V. Radhakrishnan, SC for Mr. G. PalaniFor Respondents: Mrs. Malarvizhi Udayakumar, Spl. GPO R D E R(made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.) Aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.1999 passed by the Tamil NaduLand Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in SRP No. 12 of1999 wherein and by which the Special Appellate Tribunal disagreedwith the order passed by the Appellate Authority and District RevenueOfficer, Land Tribunal, Thanjavur in L.T.C.M.A. No. 5 of 1996 therebyrestoring the order of the Assistant Commissioner and AuthorisedOfficer of Land Reforms at Villupuram dated 30.10.1995.2.Originally, the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), whois the Authorised Officer, initiated action against the petitioner,who is the land owner, on the ground that since she and her husbandwere holding lands of more than the ceiling area as on 20.5.1970, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ date of their marriage, her family is attracted by the provisions ofthe Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970(Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1970) [for short, 'Act'] and by allowing anextent of 6.15 standard acres of land in Section I and an extent of10.00 standard acres of land towards stridhana land in Section VI, anorder dated 01.02.1979 was passed under Section 9(2)(b) of the Actdeclaring that the petitioner is having 7.78 standard acres ofsurplus land in Section VI as against which C.M.A. No. 142 of 1979was filed by way of appeal and the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur, by anorder dated 21.3.1988 remanded the case for fresh considerationthereby allowing the appeal with observations that the AuthorisedOfficer shall treat the petitioner in the status of unmarriedseparated daughter as on 15.02.1970 and declare surplus accordinglyunder the provisions of the Act and that the Authorised Officer shallgive a specific finding whether the lands claimed to have been givenpossession in furtherance of the agreement of sale dated 15.4.1970has actually taken place and if so to exclude that extent whiledetermining the holding of her family as on 20.5.1970. Asagainst the same, the State preferred Civil Revision Petition beingC.R.P. No. 1755 of 1981 before this Court and this Court by orderdated 02.9.1982, set aside the direction of the Tribunal regardingexclusion of the lands sold to Karna Gounder while confirming theorder of the Tribunal in other aspects.3.Subsequent to the order of High Court, the first respondentAssistant Commissioner passed an order dated 03.4.1991 under Section9(2)(b) of the Act and since there was some clerical mistake, anotherorder was passed on 06.8.1991 declaring an extent of 6.15 standardacres of land as surplus pursuant to which a draft statement underSection 10(1) of the Act was published in the Government Gazettedated 16.10.1991. Finally, an order was passed on 30.10.1995 underSection 10(5) of the Act declaring an extent of 3.520 standard acresas surplus and the appeal filed as against the same before theAppellate Authority and District Revenue Officer, Land Tribunal,Thanjavur, was allowed by order dated 22.10.1996 declaring no surplusland. As against the same, the Authorised officer and AssistantCommissioner, (Land Reforms), Villupuram, approached the Tamil NaduLand Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal by filing a revision beingSRP No. 12 of 1999 wherein and by which the order passed by theAssistant Commissioner and Authorised Officer was restored by orderdated 28.10.1999. Hence, the writ petition by the land owner.4.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner landladycontended that the petitioner got married only on 20.5.1970 and onthe date of commencement of the Act, viz., 15.02.1970, she was anunmarried separated daughter holding an extent of 13.52 standardacres and, therefore, the authorities have misapplied the provisionsof the Act. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisionof the Supreme Court in Land Commissioner, Madras and another v.Rajeswari [2003 (5) SCC 210] wherein a similar issue was consideredby the Supreme Court in paragraph 6 in the following lines:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ".... It may be noted that this provision, namely,Section 5(4)(a) does not make any reference to thenumber of members of the family and this advantage ofallowing a female member to hold additional stridhanaland not exceeding 10 standard acres is given in everycase. The purpose of enacting Section 5(4)(b)(i) isthat a female member having stridhana land may not getdouble advantage, namely, by claiming 5 standard acresof additional land under Section 5(1)(b) and also 10standard acres of additional land under Section 5(4)(a)of the Act. The legislature has made it more than clearby using the expression “for the purposes of clause (b)to sub-section (1)” in Section 5(4)(b)(i) of theAct...." 5.He further contended that as on the date of preparation ofdraft statement, viz., 10.4.1991, under Section 10(1) of the Act, herfamily consisted of seven members, i.e, herself, her husband and fivechildren, and hence, her family is entitled to hold 25.00 standardacres of land, which is within the ceiling limit, as per Sections 10(2) and 5(1)(b) of the Act. It is the further submission of thelearned Senior Counsel that the petitioner had stridhana land to theextent of 17.78½ acres in her own name and that in view of Section 5(4)(a) of the Act, additional benefit is to be given to the familymember holding stridhana land. On these grounds, he sought forinterference of this Court.6.Learned Special Government Pleader representing therespondents submitted that the family of the petitioner consisted ofseven members and the petitioner in her own right held 17.78½standard acres as her stridhana land while her husband Jayachandranheld 6.15 standard acres. The family consisted of seven membersand in the normal course, the ceiling limit would be 20 standardacres but as the petitioner had in her own right stridhana land inexcess of 7.78½ acres, therefore, by virtue of Section 5(4)(b)(i)of the Act, she shall not be deemed to be a member of the family and,therefore, she had to be excluded from consideration. Learnedcounsel further submitted that in view of Section 5(4)(a) of the Act,only a maximum extent of 10 standard acres can be included in theholding of the family as stridhana land and where the stridhana landto the extent of 10 standard acres held by a female member has beenincluded in the family-holding, the said female member is notentitled to hold any stridhana land in addition to the extent whichhas been allowed to be included under Section 5(4)(a) of the Act.7.Learned Senior Counsel, by way of the reply to the abovesaid contention, submitted that the only effect of Section 5(4)(b)(i)is that a female member holding stridhana land may not claim doublebenefit both under Sections 5(1)(b) and 5(4)(a) of the Act and notthat she shall not be deemed to be a member of the family.8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties andperused the records. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.Before we examine the contentions raised by the learnedcounsel for the parties, it is necessary to set out the relevantprovisions of the Act, which read as under:-"3.(14) 'family' in relation to a person means theperson, the wife or husband, as the case may be, ofsuch person and his or her--(i) minor sons and unmarried daughters, and(ii)minor grandsons and unmarriedgranddaughters in the male line, whosefather and mother are dead.Explanation I -* * * (Omitted as not relevant)Explanation II -* * * (Omitted as not relevant)***5. Ceiling area.--(1)(a) Subject to theprovisions of sub-sections (3-A), (3-B) and (3-C) andof Chapter VIII, the ceiling area in the case of everyperson (other than the institutions referred to inclauses (c) and (d) and subject to the provisions ofsub-sections (3-A), (3-B), (4) and (5) and of ChapterVIII, the ceiling area in the case of every familyconsisting of not more than five members shall be 15standard acres.(b) The ceiling area in the case of every familyconsisting of more than five members shall, subject tothe provisions of sub-sections (3-A), (3-B), (3-C), (4)and (5) and of Chapter VIII, be 15 standard acrestogether with an additional 5 standard acres for everymember of the family in excess of five.(c)***(Omitted as not relevant)***(2)For the purposes of this section, all thelands held individually by the members of a family orjointly by some or all of the members of such familyshall be deemed to be held by the family.(3)***(Omitted as not relevant)(4)(a) Subject to the provisions of sub-section(5), where the stridhana land held by any female memberof a family together with the other land held by allthe members of that family, is in excess of 15 standardacres, the female member concerned may hold, inaddition to the extent of land which the family is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ entitled to hold under sub-section (1), stridhana landnot exceeding 10 standard acres:Provided that where any extent of stridhana landheld by a female member is included in the extent ofland which the family is entitled to hold under sub-section (1) and in case where the extent so includedis--(i)10 or more than 10 standard acres, sheshall not be entitled to hold anystridhana land in addition to the extentso included; or (ii)less than 10 standard acres, she mayhold in addition to the extent so includedan extent of stridhana land, whichtogether with the extent so included,shall not exceed 10 standard acres.(b)Where the extent of stridhana land held underclause (a) by any female member of a family consistingof more than five members --(i)is 5 or more than 5 standard acres, sheshall not be deemed to be a member of thatfamily for the purposes of clause (b) ofsub-section (1); or(ii)is less than 5 standard acres, theadditional extent of 5 standard acresallowed under clause (b) of sub-section(1) be reduced by the same extent as theextent of stridhana land so held.***(5)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and in sub-section (4) and in Chapter VIIIthe total extent of the land held or deemed to be heldby any family shall in no case exceed 30 standardacres."10.A plain reading of the above quoted provisions of the Actwould show that under Sections 5(1)(a) and (b), the ceiling in caseof a family consisting of not less than five members is 15 standardacres and where the family consists of more than five member is 15standard acres and where the family consists of more than fivemembers, subject to provisions referred to in sub-clause (b), thefamily will be entitled to additional 5 standard acres of land forevery member of the family in excess of five. In view of Section5(5) of the Act, the total extent of the land held by a family shallin no case exceed 30 standard acres. Section 5(2) lays down that alllands held individually by the members of a family or jointly by someor all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be held by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the family. Section 5(4)(a) provides that where the stridhana landheld by any female member of a family together with the other landheld by all the members of that family is in excess of 15 standardacres, the female member concerned may hold, in addition to theextent of land which the family is entitled to hold under sub-section(1), stridhana land not exceeding 10 standard acres.11.The clear import of Section 5(4)(a) of the Act is that wherethe stridhana land held by any female member of a family togetherwith the other land held by all the members of that family is inexcess of 15 standard acres, the female member concerned may hold anadditional 10 standard acres of stridhana land. Therefore, theargument advanced by the learned Special Government Pleaderrepresenting the Government that the family consisted of sevenmembers and in the normal course, the ceiling limit would be 20standard acres but as the petitioner had in her own right stridhanaland in excess of 7.78½ acres and, therefore, by virtue of Section 5(4)(b)(i) of the Act, she shall not be deemed to be a member of thefamily, cannot be sustained.12.Applying the above position of law to the facts andcircumstances of the case, even ignoring the land sold to one KarnaGounder, the land owner is having lands to an extent of 13.520standard acres whereas the family is having only 6.930 standard acresand the total extent of land is not exceeding 25 standard acreswhereas it comes to only 20.450 acres. Therefore, both theAuthorised officer and the Special Appellate Tribunal had committedan illegality in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner isholding surplus land for an extent of 3.520 acres and the contentionraised by the learned Special Government Pleader on similar linesstands rejected.13.It is also relevant to refer to the following passage foundat paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra:-".... The combined effect of Section 5(1)(a), Section 5(4)(a) and Section 5(4)(b)(i) is that the family isentitled to hold 15 standard acres of land and inaddition, the wife Rajeswari in her own right isentitled to hold stridhana land to the extent of 10standard acres. In the case in hand the total holdingof the family is less than the prescribed ceiling limitof 15 standard acres plus 10 standard acres and,therefore, the surplus declared by the AuthorisedOfficer which was upheld by the Land Commissioner isclearly illegal."14.Further, as per Section 5(5) of the Act, the total extent ofthe land held or deemed to be held by any family shall in no caseexceed 30 standard acres. In the case on hand, the family of thepetitioner consisted of seven members, ie., landlady herself, herhusband and five children. It is pertinent to note that theadministered ceiling is 15 standard acres whereas the family is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ having only 6.930 acres. The petitioner landlady is entitled tohold lands to an extent of 10 standard acres as stridhana and assuch, the total extent of lands comes to 16.930 standard acreswhereas the entitlement is 20.450 acres. Therefore, applying theabove principle of law to the facts and circumstances of the presentcase, it is clear that the family is holding less than the prescribedceiling limit of 25 standard acres. Therefore, both theAuthorised officer and Special Appellate Tribunal have committedillegality in interpreting and applying Section 3(14) read withSection 5(4)(a) of the Act. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that theview taken by the Authorised Officer and Assistant Commissionerconfirmed by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunalneeds to be interfered with. Accordingly, the writ petition isallowed and the orders passed by the said authorities are set asideand the order of the Appellate Authority and District RevenueOfficer, Land Tribunal, Thanjavur is upheld holding that thepetitioner is not having any surplus standard acres. However,there will be no order as to costs. Connected MiscellaneousPetition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrargriTo1.The Asst. Commissioner (Land Reforms)Villupuram2.The Land TribunalThanjavur now at Chennai3.The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate TribunalChennai1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.337651 cc To Mr.G.Palani, Advocate, SR.32985W. P. No. 2166 of 2000JP(CO)SRA(18/08/2009)