Tmt.Vijayalakshmi v. The Authorised Officer and Asst. Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram & Ors.

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 excludedfrom the holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder, and in allother respects have rejected the objections and contentions raised bythe writ petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 and has further directed the Authorised Officer of Land Reforms at Villupuram to issue noticesindividually to the petitioners/ respondents 3 to 5 and after hearingthem for suggesting the surplus lands as required under Section 10(4)of the Act, the Authorised Officer of the Land Reforms at Villupuramhas been directed to publish a revised draft statement under Section10(5) of the Act and to proceed further in accordance with law asexpeditiously as possible and resultantly, allowed the SpecialRevision Petition in part and set aside the judgment of the secondrespondent/Land Tribunal, Thanjavur dated 11.12.97 inLTCMA.No.28/1997.'3.The learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents 3 to 5submits that the first petitioner/third respondent's grandfatherHanumantharaya Gounder (deceased) owned agricultural lands to anextent of 188.80 ordinary acres equivalent to 55.969 standard acresin the Villages of Alasanthapuram, Simukampattu and Narayanapuram in Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District and during his life time, hesettled an extent of 16.58 ordinary acres of land situated at Alasanthapuram Village by means of a settlement deed dated 22.7.1959in favour of his mother Chinnammal which is a registered documentbearing No.2157/59 at the office of Sub-Registrar, Vaniyambadi andfurther on the same day, he settled another extent of 10.77 ordinaryacres of land situated at Narayanapuram in her favour and in favourof the second petitioner/fourth respondent absolutely with motherRathinammal as Guardian and added further, the grandfather of thefirst petitioner/third respondent has settled an extent of 113.83ordinary acres of lands situated at Simukampattu village in favour ofher father Maikanna Gounder and her mother Rathinammal by means ofregistered settlement deed dated 22.7.1959 giving them right ofpossession and enjoyment of the said lands for their life timewithout any power of alienation with a further condition after thelife time the said lands should be equally shared by thepetitioners/respondents 3 to 5 and also that her grandfatherHanumantharaya Gounder retained an extent of 47.67 ordinary acres oflands situated at Alasanthapuram out of the total extent owned by himand continuing further, the first petitioner/third respondent'sgrandfather expired on 01.06.1964 leaving behind him his wifeNagammal and his daughter Rathinammal as legal heirs and as such, hergrandmother Nagammal and mother Rathinammal have succeeded to theextent of 47.67 ordinary acres retained by her grandfatherHanumantharaya Gounder and in an extent of 113.83 acres settled infavour of her father and mother consisted of fruit bearing treesplanted before 1959 and the first respondent commenced proceedingsunder 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 55.969standard acres as on 15.2.1970 and her grandfather has been calledupon to attend an enquiry on 04.12.1992 and in the enquiry heappraised that only an extent of 113.80 ordinary acres of lands weresettled both in his favour and his wife and that they had the lifeinterest only in the aforesaid lands and the firstrespondent/Authorised Officer was informed about the lands retainedby the grandfather and the factum of his death on 01.06.1964 and hewas called upon to file Form No.2 by 14.12.1992 and he could not filethe form as he suffered heart attack apart from the fact that he wasa chronic diabetic patient and therefore, it was not correct to statethat he refused to receive the notices sent by the Authorised Officerand even the endorsements of the postal authorities stated that herfather had not come and received the notice and as a matter of fact, the report of Special Revenue Inspector was not correct since henever gave any intimation in this regard.

4. Further, it is the stand of the petitioners/ respondents 3 to5 that the first petitioner/third respondent's father was sufferingfrom heart ailment and therefore, he could not attend the enquiry on24.6.1994 and was admitted in Aiyisha Hospital on 28.6.1994 and wasdischarged on 05.7.1994 and since he was advised bed rest, he couldnot attend the enquiry held on 13.7.1994 and the said absence wasneither wilful nor wanton nor deliberate and in short, the orderpassed by the Authorised Officer as per Section 9(2)(b) of the Act byits proceedings dated 2.9.1994 coming to the conclusion that thefirst petitioner/ third respondent's father owned excess lands of40.969 acres was purely based upon the presumption and there were nomaterials to show that the Authorised Officer complied with theprovisions of Section 9(2)(a) of the Act and the Rule in collectinginformation and indeed, the first petitioner/ third respondent'sfather finally contacted his lawyer at Chennai in December 1995 whofiled revision petition under Section 82 of the Act before the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Madras, under the impression that anorder was passed as per Section 9(3) of the Act and this mistake waspointed out by the Office of the Commissioner of Land Reforms but thesaid office had not returned the papers and due to cardiac failure, the first petitioner/third respondent's father expired andsubsequently, her mother Rathinammal filed an appeal in LTCMA.No.28of 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 holdingthat there was no reason for continuation of the land proceedings inthe present case without taking into consideration the lands eligiblefor exemption and the Land Tribunal appreciated the fact that thefirst petitioner/third respondent's father Maikanna Gounder was notonly the life estate holder, but the mother Rathinammal also hadequal 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/fourthrespondent and also the extent retained by the said HanumantharayaGounder which could not be considered as coming within the holding offirst petitioner/third respondent's father and the Land Tribunalreferred to the fact that an extent of 154 acres ought to have beenexempted as per Section 73 and 3(22) of the Act since they were fruitbearing trees and other varieties planted before 1959 and in thisregard, 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 LandTribunal, Thanjavur, the Principal Commissioner and the Commissionerof Land Reforms authorised the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms),Villupuram to file a special revision petition as per Section 83 ofthe Act before the third respondent/ Special Appellate Land Tribunaland the revision was taken on file as S.R.P.No.15 of 1999 aftercondoning the delay and during the pendency of the said revisionpetition, the writ petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 were brought onrecord at the behest of the first respondent based on the settlementdeed executed in favour of the first petitioner/third respondent andthe second petitioner/fourth respondent and later, the mother of thepetitioners 1 and 2 expired on 01.5.2001 and therefore, thepetitioners/ respondents 3 to 5 were brought on record as legalrepresentatives and later the third respondent/Special AppellateTribunal had allowed the revision to the extent pertaining to thelands settled in favour of Chinnammal as per the settlement deeddated 22.7.1959 except the land in Survey No.60 in the aforesaiddocument and in other aspects, rejected the same.

6. The specific stand of the writ petitioners/respondents 3 to 5is that the Authorised Officer/first respondent, as per Rule 9 of the Land Reforms Rules, 1962, must obtain necessary information as permanner prescribed but the Authorised Officer/first respondentrecorded the statement of Village Administrative Officer and came tothe conclusion that the claim of the petitioners/respondents 3 to 5was not established and the Authorised Officer/first respondentshould have seen that lands comprised in Survey No.69/4 were setapart for 'Samadhi' and that the land comprised in Survey No.69/8 wasunfit for cultivation and that the land comprised in Survey No.71/3was a house site and not an agricultural land. The Appellate Tribunalelaborately dealt with these aspects and held that these lands shouldhave been excluded from the holdings. But, the thirdrespondent/Special Appellate Tribunal came to a wrong conclusion thatthe claim of the petitioners was not established and as a matter offact, the third respondent/Tribunal had not appreciated the fact that Narayanapuram is situated contiguous to Alasanthapuram and that landssettled in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 formed part of theentire extent of 188.80 acres and this conclusion is an errorapparent on the face of record which needs to be corrected andtherefore, 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/AuthorisedOfficer and Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram, by hisorder dated 02.9.1994, has stated that Maikanna Gounder, son of Lakshmana Gounder residing at Alasanthapuram Village, VaniyambadiTaluk of North Arcot Ambedkar District has come under the provisionsof Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 asamended by Tamil Nadu Act No.17 of 1970 and the detailed enquiry hasrevealed that he holds the lands at Alasanthapuram and SimukampattuVillages to an extent of 188.80 ordinary acres equivalent to 55.969standard acres as on 15.2.1970 and that the land owner attendedenquiry and deposed that the properties were settled by his father-in-law through settlement and that his father-in-law died in the year1964 and that his mother-in-law pre-deceased him during the year 1994.8.However, the land owner had not produced the originalsettlement deed of his father-in-law and as on 15.2.1970 the totalnumber of the owner's family was only 5 and that the said MaikannaGounder though promised to produce the return in Form-2 on 14.12.92has neither turned up for enquiry nor he filed the return in FormNo.2 as required under the Act and moreover, a final opportunity bymeans of the notice dated 11.1.1993 was issued to the said landowner, who refused to receive the registered post letter and that thesaid registered letter was sent "returned undelivered" and anotherintimation letter dated 27.4.1995 was sent through Special RevenueInspector (Land Reforms) of Vellore for causing service and the Special Revenue Inspector in his N.Dis 52/93 dated 15.5.93 hadreported that the land owner refused to receive the intimation sentfor 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 samewere returned and finally a notice in Form No.4 was issued to theland owner as per Section 9(1) of the Act and the land owner wasdirected to attend the enquiry on 6.6.94 at Villupuram and since theland owner, by his letter dated 3.6.94, informed that he could notattend the enquiry at Villupuram due to ill health and requested foradjournment and to post the further enquiry at Vaniyambadi and eventhough the enquiry was adjourned to 24.6.94 at Vaniyambadi, he hadnot attended the enquiry and sent intimation that due to ill healthhe could not attend the enquiry at Vaniyambadi and requested foradjournment and again the enquiry was posted to 13.7.94 andintimation sent through registered post was not received by the landowner.

Even on 13.7.94 the land owner did not turn up for the enquiryat Vaniyambadi and the Village Administrative Officer of Alasanthapuram village appeared on 13.7.94 at Vaniyambadi and statedthat the land owner had got an extent of 188.80 acres of land at Alasanthapuram and Simakampattu villages. As the land owner wasevading appearance to attend the enquiry, as seen from the materialrecords it was presumed that he had no objection to the informationfurnished 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: ExtentOrd. Acres Std. AcresHolding 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 anextent of 40.969 standard acres within 15 days from the date ofreceipt of the order failing which the surplus lands would beselected suo-motu as per Section 10(3) of the Act and draft statementas 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) dated2.9.94 the said Rathinammal wife of Maikanna Gounder (deceased) haspreferred an appeal in No.28 of 1997 before the secondrespondent/Land Tribunal and that the said appeal was allowed on11.12.1997 by the second respondent/Land Tribunal inter alia holdingthat 'there were five families (units) existing as on 15.2.70, thedate of commencement of the Act, and due shares shall be allotted tothem and the total extent available in this case was 55.96 standardacres 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, theoriginal land owner, had two grand daughters as on 1959 at the timeof settlement. But, after four years another daughter was born to Mrs.

Rathinammal, the daughter of said Hanumantharaya Gounder and hemade a provision for her in the settlement deed as per documentNo.2161/59 and as per the settlement, the settlees were given lifetime enjoyment and the properties shall devolve upon the childrenborn to them and to the legal heirs as per law and the granddaughters partitioned the properties mentioned in the settlement deedand further, the said Hanumantharaya Gounder expired in the year 1964and retained an extent of 47.67 acres of land for himself and settled16.58 acres of land in favour of his mother and this extent shall beclubbed with their retained portions of Hanumantharaya Gounder and atthe time of his death, the Hanumantharaya Gounder held an extent of64.25 acres of land and this extent shall be divided among thesurviving legal heirs and he had left behind daughter Mrs. Rathinammaland his wife Mrs. Nagammal. But they were not provided with anyproperties even though Mrs.

Rathinammal was given life estate as perthe document No.2161/59 settlement deed and moreover, HanumantharayaGounder'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 werealive on the date of commencement of the Act and they ought to betreated as individual units but the first respondent/AuthorisedOfficer clubbed the entire extent into one and initiated proceedingsagainst Maikanna Gounder who was not at all given any absoluteownership over the property as per the settlement deed 2161/59 andapart from the above, an extent of 40.75 acres of land mentioned inpatta No.60 in Alahanthapuram village stood in the name of Nagammaland the said Nagammal sold the lands by means of registered documentsand when the patta stood in the name of Nagammal her name was leftout and her holdings were clubbed and the land ceiling proceedingswere initiated against Maikanna Gounder, who was neither a legal heirnor an absolute owner of the land and this action of the firstrespondent/Authorised Officer was not correct and Rathinammal was thelegal heir of the Hanumantharaya Gounder and in her name patta No.114of Alasanthapuram village stood in respect of some of the lands andtherefore, Nagammal and Rathinammal should be treated as separateunits 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 thefirst respondent/Authorised Officer and Assistant Commissioner (LandReforms), 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/SpecialAppellate Tribunal, Chennai as against the order of the secondrespondent/Land Tribunal, Thanjavur passed in LTCMA.No.28 of 1997dated 11.12.1997. It also transpires that the firstrespondent/Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) has filed M.P.No.143 of1998 to condone the delay of 166 days in preferring the SpecialRevision Petition against the orders dated 11.2.1997 of the secondrespondent/Land Tribunal made in LTCMA.No.28 of 1997 and the thirdrespondent/Special Appellate Tribunal has condoned the said delay of166 days and allowed M.P.No.143 of 1998 and further directed tonumber the main revision petition, if it is in order and post thesame for hearing on 28.4.1999.12.In the Special Revision Petition No.15 of 1999 filed by thefirst respondent/Authorised officer and Assistant Commissioner (LandReforms), the third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal has framedas many as 8 points for determination and they are as follows: "

Whether the second respondent herein byname Rathinammal and her husband Maikanna Gounderhave got only the right of enjoyment in the landssettled by Hanumantharaya Gounder under thesettlement 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 dated22.7.59 registered as Document No.2161/59 cannotbe taken as the land held by the landownerMaikanna Gounder as he was only a limited owner ora life estate holder and whether therefore thelands covered by this settlement deed dated22.7.59 cannot be taken into account for thepurpose of fixing the ceiling and determining thesurplus land of the landowner Maikanna Gounder?2.Whether the lands covered by the settlementdeed dated 22.7.59 executed by HanumantharayaGounder in favour of one Chinnammal and registeredas Document No.2157/1959 have been included in theholdings of the landowner Maikanna Gounder andwhether the lands covered by the settlement deeddated 22.7.59 registered as Document No.2157 of1959 have to be excluded from the holdings of thelandowner Maikanna Gounder?3.Whether the land in Survey No.69/4 of Alasanthapuram village is a "samathi" and whetherthe said land should be excluded from the holdingsof the landowner Maikanna Gounder?4.Whether the land in Survey NO.69/8 of Alasanthapuram village is unfit for cultivationand whether it has to be excluded from theholdings of the landowner Maikanna Gounder?5.Whether the land in Survey No.71/3 of Alasanthapuram village is a house site and whetherit has to be excluded from the holdings of thelandowner 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 asettlement deed dated 22.7.59 executed by Hanumantharaya Gounder and registered as DocumentNo.2155 of 1959 and whether the Authorised Officerof Land Reforms at Villupuram erred in includingthese items in the holdings of the land ownerMaikanna Gounder?7.Whether the land in Survey Nos.3/2 of Alasanthapuram village is a mango thope andwhether the lands in Survey Nos.27/1, 8/3, 31 4/1,25, 16/2, 26 and 33 of Alasanthapuram village arecoconut thopes and whether the lands in SurveyNo.75/3 of Alasanthapuram village are mango, palmyra and tamarind thopes and whether as suchthese 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/

In regard to Point No.2 the third respondent/Tribunal hasobserved that on a perusal of the settlement deed, registered asdocument No.2157/59 it finds that Hanumantharaya Gounder has settledthe lands in Survey No.75/3, measuring 2.34 acres, Survey No.75/3measuring 3.97 acres, Survey No.69/8 measuring 3.06 acres, SurveyNo.62/1 measuring 5.90 acres and Survey No.60 measuring 1.31 acresand that the first respondent/Authorised Officer has included SurveyNo.75/1 measuring 2.35 acres in the retainable holdings of the landowner Maikanna Gounder and likewise, the land in Survey No.75/3measuring 3.96 acres has been included in the retainable holdings ofthe 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 landowner and moreover, the land in Survey No.62/1 measuring a totalextent of 5.90 acres has been split up into two portions and onemeasuring 2.57 in Survey No.62/1 has been shown in the retainableholdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder and the other portionmeasuring 3.35 acres in Survey No.62/1 has been shown in the surplusholdings 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 anyone of the holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder and ultimatelythe Tribunal has come to the conclusion that except the land in Survey No.60 all the remaining lands in Survey No.75/1 measuring2.35, Survey No.75/3 measuring 3.06 acres, Survey No.69/8 measuring3.08 acres and Survey No.62/1 measuring a total extent of 5.90 acresof Alasanthapuram Village have to be excluded from the holdings ofthe land owner Maikanna Gounder as these lands belonged to Chinnammal, and the first respondent/Authorised Officer has beendirected to exclude these lands from the holdings of the land owner.

As regards the Point No.3, the third respondent/SpecialAppellate Tribunal has observed that 'nowhere in the adangal extractit is stated that there is a 'Samathi' in Survey No.69/4 and from theadangal extract it is seen that agricultural crops like paddy andsugarcane have been raised in Survey No.69/4 of Alasanthapuramvillage and therefore, it has come to the definite conclusion thatland in Survey No.69/4 of Alasanthapuram is not a 'Samathi' but it isonly an agricultural land and the land in Survey No.69/4 measuring anextent of 6.82 acres of Alasanthapuram village cannot be excluded onthe ground that it is a 'Samathi'.

Coming to the Point No.4, the third respondent/Tribunal hasobserved that 'in the adangal extract for fasli 1404 corresponding tothe English year, crops like sugarcane and paddy have been raised in Survey No.69.8 measuring 3.08 acres and therefore, it has held thatthe land in Survey No.69/8 of Alasanthapuram village is unfit forcultivation and it has to be included in the holdings of the landowner Maikanna Gounder.

The third respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal, whileanswering Point No.5 has observed that 'not a scrap of paper has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ placed by the petitioners/3 to 5 respondents and the secondrespondent Rathinammal (deceased) to show that the land in SurveyNo.71/3 measuring 48 cents is entirely a house site but from thechitta extract it is seen that the land in Survey No.71/3 ismentioned as 'Pungai' land and resultantly, it has held that the landin Survey No.71/3 of Alasanthapuram village is not a house site, andit cannot be excluded as per Section 3(22) of the Act from theholdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder.

In answering the Point No.6 the third respondent/ SpecialAppellate Tribunal has held that the lands bearing Survey No.20/1measuring 1.12 acres, Survey No.20/2 measuring 0.72 acres, SurveyNo.25/3 measuring 1.14 acres and Survey No.47/2 measuring 2.65 acrestotalling an extent of 5 acres 63 cents were alone settled by Hanumantharaya Gounder in favour of his grand daughters Vijayalakshmiand Jayalakshmi under the settlement deed dated 22.7.1959 and theselands in four items were not at all included in the holdings of theland owner Maikanna Gounder by the first respondent/AuthorisedOfficer and accordingly granted no relief to thepetitioners/respondents 3 to 5.

In regard to the Point No.7, the third respondent/ Tribunalhas held that the burden is squarely upon the petitioners/respondents3 to 5 to establish the fact that the lands were converted before1.7.59 into thopes and they were continued as such till the date ofexemption asked for before the land Tribunal at Thanjavur in theappeal in LTCMA.No.28 of 1997. It is to be pointed out that in orderto derive the benefit conferred by Section 73(VII) of the Act, theapplicant must not only prove that the land in respect of whichexemption is sought for was converted on or before 1.7.59 into an Orchard or Thope or Arecanut Garden, but that he must further exhibitthat from the date of conversion, the said land has continued to bemaintained as an Orchard, Thope or Arecanut Garden till such time theexemption is asked for as per decision State of Madras V. Ramani Iyer1975 Mad 26. In the instant case, no material was produced before thesecond respondent/Land Tribunal at Thanjavur or before the firstrespondent/Authorised Officer or before the third respondent to showthat these lands were converted into Thopes as on 1.7.1959 andcontinued to be maintained as Thopes and till such time the exemptionwas asked for and even adangal extracts from the year 1959 were notproduced to show that these lands were converted into Thopes as on1.7.1959 and continued to be maintained as Thopes and resultantly, negatived the plea that these lands are to be given the exemptionunder Section 73(vii) of the Act. 19. In regard to Point No.1, the third respondent/ Tribunal hascome to the conclusion that the land owner Maikanna Gounder and hiswife Rathinammal have got only the right of enjoyment in the landssettled by Hanumantharaya Gounder as per settlement deed dated22.7.1959 and the lands covered by the settlement deed dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

22.7.1959 must be taken into account as the lands held by the landowner Maikanna Gounder even though Maikanna Gounder and his wifeRathinammal were limited owners or life estate holders and as suchthe lands covered by the settlement deed dated 22.7.1959 must betaken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the ceiling anddetermining the surplus land of the land owner Maikanna Gounder andthus answered against the petitioners. Also the thirdrespondent/Tribunal has held that the Officer of the Land Tribunal at Thanjavur has committed an illegality by stating that patta stood inthe name of Nagammal and Rathinammal and so they were five familiesin this case and there is only one family viz., the family of Maikanna Gounder and his holdings have to be determined and for theentire proceedings Maikanna Gounder was treated as the land owner andhis agricultural holdings alone have to be determined and for theentire proceedings Maikanna Gounder was treated as land owner andagricultural holdings have to be determined and as such the findingsof the officer of the Land Tribunal at Thanjavur cannot be sustainedon this aspect of the family and the patta stood in the names of Nagammal and Rathinammal have to be set aside and further that thefirst respondent/Authorised Officer is directed to issue noticesindividually to the petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 and after hearingthem for suggesting the surplus lands as required under Section 10(4)of the Act, is directed to publish a revised draft statement under Section 10(5) of the Act and proceed further in accordance with lawas expeditiously as possible.

20. It is the stand of the petitioners that the lands held by Maikanna Gounder and Rathinammal though as limited owner has to betaken into account because of the definition of 'Family' under Section 3(14) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 and also by means of the definition of 'Owner' in Section 3(33) and as per definition of 'Limited Owner' in Section 3(28) of the Act. 21. It is useful to refer Section 3(14) of the Act, which speaksof 'Family' in relation to a person which means the person, the wifeor husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her - (i)minor sons and unmarried daughters, and (ii)minor grand-sons andunmarried grand-daughters in the male line, whose father and motherare dead etc. Also Section 3(33) of the Act defines 'Owner' whichruns as follows: "(a) means -(i) any person holding land in severalty orjointly or in common under a ryotwari settlementor in any way subject to the payment of revenuedirect to the Government, or(ii) a land holder as defined in the TamilNadu Estates Land Act, 1908 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of1908), or a ryot as defined in that Act, or(iii)an inamdar not being a landholder https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ defined as aforesaid, and(b)includes-(i)full owner or limited owner, or(ii)the lessee of any lease-hold village orhis heirs, assignees, legal representatives orpersons deriving rights through him; " Moreover, Section 3(28) of the Act speaks of "Limited Owner" whichruns thus: "'limited owner' means any person entitled to alife estate in any land and includes personsderiving rights through him; Explanation.- A person who has a right toenjoy the land during his lifetime shall bedeemed to be a limited owner notwithstanding thathe has no power to alienate the land: "22.

In the case on hand, Hanumantharaya Gounder expired on01.6.1964 leaving behind him Nagammal (wife) and Rathinammal (onlydaughter). The said daughter Rathinammal got married to MaikannaGounder. Nagammal also expired on 10.12.84. On 22.12.95 the saidMaikanna Gounder expired and he left behind him Rathinammal (wife)and 3 daughters viz., writ petitioners/ respondents 3 to 5. On15.2.1970, the date of commencement of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, Maikanna Gounder's familycomprised of himself, wife Rathinammal and three unmarried daughtersand in all five members and therefore, the ceiling for MaikannaGounder's family (land owner) is 15 standard acres. By means of theregistered Settlement Deed dated 22.7.59, Maikanna Gounder and hiswife possessed only the life estate and their interests in the landunder the settlement deed dated 22.7.59 will have to be included inthe land owner Maikanna Gounder's holdings as per the definition of'family', 'owner' and 'limited owner' enjoined under the Act as perSections 3(14), 3(33) and 3(28).

Significantly, Section 5(6) of the Act refers to calculating the extent of land held or deemed to beheld by any person, the extent of land which may revert to suchperson immediately after the death of any limited owner shall, duringthe lifetime of the limited owner, be excluded. 23. It is to be borne in mind after the passing of the Act 17 of1970 the family's holding had to be determined with reference to thenotified dated i.e., 2.10.1970 as per decision B.K.V.Radhamani AmmalV. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, AIR 1985 SC 569. As a matter offact, Section 5(1)(a) of the Act under the caption 'Ceiling area'enjoins that 'Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3-A), 93-B),and (3-C) and of Chapter VIII, the ceiling area in the case of everyperson (other than the institutions referred to in clauses (c) and(d) and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3-A), (3-B), (3-C), (4) and (5) and of Chapter VIII, the ceiling area in the case ofevery family consisting of not more than five members shall be 15 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ standard acres.' On a reading of the ingredients of Section 5(6) ofthe Act makes it clear that a total exclusion is not permitted andthe interest of the limited owner and the remainder man are governedas per the provisions of the Act and therefore, it cannot be said byany means that a limited owner or a remainder man are altogetheroutside the ambit and purview of the Act.

Therefore, Maikanna Gounder(land owner) and his wife Rathinammal possessed only the right ofenjoyment in the lands settled by Hanumantharaya by means ofsettlement deed dated 22.7.59 and as such, the lands covered by thesettlement deed are to be taken into account as the lands possessedby the land owner Maikanna Gounder notwithstanding the fact that Maikanna Gounder and his wife Rathinammal were limited owners or lifeestate holders and resultantly, the lands referred to under the abovesaid settlement deed have to be taken into account in regard to thefixation of the ceiling and determining the excess land of the landowner Maikanna Gounder. 24. It is an axiomatic fact that patta is not a title document. In the present case, we are concerned with the land owner MaikannaGounder's family and as such, his holdings will have to be determinedand in respect of the entire proceedings the said Maikanna Gounderwas treated as the land owner and his agricultural holding alone willhave to be taken into account and determined.

Just because the pattastands in the name of Nagammal and Rathinammal, by no stretch ofimagination, it can be construed as separate unit and resultantly, the observation of the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur in this regard is notsustainable in the eye of law. 25. That apart, though an endeavour has been made before thethird respondent/Special Appellate Tribunal, on the side ofpetitioners/respondents 3 to 5, to approach the unregisteredpartition deeds dated 18.4.1993 and 31.12.1969 executed by deceasedRathinammal and three daughters, the third respondent/Tribunal hascome to the conclusion that they are void documents. 26. In the light of the detailed discussions and on anappreciation of the entire gamut of the facts and circumstances ofthe case, we are of the considered view that the thirdrespondent/Special Appellate Tribunal has passed a reasoned order incoming to the conclusion that the lands held by Chinnammal by virtueof settlement deed dated 22.7.59 in Survey Nos.60, 75/1, 75/3, 69/8and 62/1of Alasanthapuram village are to be excluded from theholdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder and in other aspectsrightly dismissed the objections raised by thepetitioners/respondents 3 to 5 and passed a further just andequitable direction in directing the first respondent/AuthorisedOfficer to issue notices individually to the writ petitioners and tohear them for suggesting the surplus lands as per Section 10(4) ofthe Act and further, the first respondent/Authorised Officer has beendirected to publish the draft statement under Section 10 of the Act https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and proceed further in accordance with law which are not liable to beinterfered with from any point of view and resultantly, the writpetition fails.

27. In fine, for the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition isdismissed without costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is closed. SglSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.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.+ 1 CC to Mr.G.Bhardwaj Advocate CC SR.59364+ 1 CC to Government Pleader CC SR.59253 ORDER INW.P.No.2824 OF 2002RSY(CO)VC (12.11.2009)