- (1.) THESE petitions pertain to problems relating to S. 22 or S. 9 (2) (b) of the madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act 1961 Sec 22 covers transitions which took place between 6-4-1960 and 2-10-1962. It appears that the state Government issued administrative instructions to authorised officer and others concerned as to how matters arising under that section should be classified for purposes of disposal. It is argued that notices issued by the authorised officers under S. 22 keeping in view of bring influenced by the said instructions of the government should be quashed. It is obvious that the jurisdiction under Sec. 22 is quasi-judicial and the officers entrusted with the jurisdiction should be left free to decide matters arising under S. 22. No administrative instructions in the matter can property be issued either classifying transactions which will fall within the purview of S. 22 or giving any other indication as to how matters should be disposed of under S. 22. The instructions issued by the Government, therefore, are highly objectionable. That being the case we are of the view that notices which have been issued to the petitioners under S. 22 were apparently influenced by the administrative instructions of the Government. No doubt it is argued for the State that the officers were not compelled to follow the instructions. But we wonder which administrative officer will dare keep aside or disregard any instructions given by such high authority as the Government. The presumption in such a case should necessarily be that the concerned officers acting under S. 22 have been and must have been influenced by such instructions. The consequence is that the notice issued to the petitioners under S. 22 will be vitiated on account of those instructions. We Consider, therefore, that those notices to the petitioners should be disregarded and if necessary, the officers concerned should, whenever they think so, issue fresh notices to such of the petitioners as they think proper. In doing so, they should remember that they are vested with a quasi-judicial authority which they are bound to exercise without regard to any external or outside influence of instructions and that they should bring to bear on the merits their honest and independent mind in deciding controversial issued to the petitioners under S. 22. The concerned officers, if they issued fresh notice to any of the petitioners, will give proper and effective opportunity to them to file all their objections and fully represent their relative cases. These petitions are, therefore, allowed, but with no costs.
(2.) IN regard to the other petitions which raise the question under S. 9 (2) (b) of the Act, we are of the view that the concerned authorities must give fresh and proper opportunity to those petitioners aggrieved and dispose of the question under S. 9 (2) (b) afresh.
(3.) IN W. P. 1474 of 1479, 1754, 3792, 4492, 4488 of 1965 it is said that the notices under Sec. 9 assume or take it for granted that certain transactions which fell within the purview of S. 22 are invalid and proceeded on that basis without there being an enquiry or an order under S. 22. That of course is illegal. The officers are not entitled to so assume. They can treat the transactions which fall within the purview of S. 22 as invalid only after observing the procedure laid down by that section and making an order thereunder. These petitions are also allowed.;