- (1.) J:- This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras whereby it remitted the matter to the Authorised Officer for disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made therein. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under : The appellant-land owner held lands in Kanyakumari District in excess of 30 standard acres as on 6th April, 1960. He filed a return in Form No. 2 as required by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Act 58 of 1961), hereinafter called 'the Act'. An enquiry was initiated by the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, under S. 9(2)(b) of the Act. The appellant raised several objections but they were overruled. The Authorised Officer came to the conclusion that the family of the appellant could be reckoned to be of five members between 6th April, 1960 and 2nd October, 1962 and accordingly the land owner was entitled to 30 standard acres while his wife and daughter could hold 10 and 7.71 standard acres respectively as sridhana lands. The appellant was directed to state which lands he wished to be included in his holding and identify the lands which fell surplus, failing which the Authorised Officer said he would be constrained to select the surplus lands. The appellant was given five days time to make the option.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Authorised Officer, the appellant preferred an appeal under S. 78(1) to the Lands Tribunal. The appellant complained that the Authorised Officer had wrongly added the lands of his minor sons, unmarried daughter and wife gifted to them long before 1960 in his holdings for determining if his total holdings exceeded the ceiling limit fixed under S. 5(2) of the Act. According to him the lands covered under the registered gift deed ought to have been excluded from his holding under the Explanation to S. 3(14) as a gift stood on par with a partition. As a limb of the same argument the appellant contended that subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the Act was drastically amended by Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970 (Act 17 of 1970), hereinafter called 'the amending Act', whereby under S. 3(2), 'the date of commencement of this Act' came to be fixed as 15th February, 1970 and the 'notified date' came to be fixed as 2nd October, 1970 under S. 3(31) of the Act. Consequently, argued the appellant, his rights and liabilities with regard to the fixation of ceiling area were required to be worked out on the basis of the state of affairs existing on the revised date of commencement of the Act i.e. 15th February, 1970, fixed by virtue of the amendment in the Act. He also relied on the fact that his eldest son who was a minor on 10th April, 1968 had attained majority on 1st January, 1970 (in the High Court judgment the date is 1st October, 1970) i.e. before the commencement of the Act on 15th February, 1970, and also before the notified date i.e. 2nd October, 1970, and hence his land could not be included in his holding as was done by the Authorised Officer. It was also pointed out that his son had created a trust in respect of a portion of the land which would be exempt from the operation of the Act by virtue of S. 73(2)(b) of the Act. It was, therefore, submitted that his eldest son Laxminarayanan was a necessary party and the proper course would be to set aside the impugned order of the Authorised Officer and remand the matter for a de novo consideration after notice to his son. The second submission made was that on 10th April, 1968 when the impugned order was made the appellant's wife was pregnant, she had since delivered a daughter and had gifted to her 5,71 acres of Vadaseri land on 1st October, 1970 and later an additional 5.06 acres of the land from the same village, which developments had to be taken into account as subsequent events touching the determination of the appellant's ceiling area. Thirdly, it was pointed out that the appellant had transferred 2 acres 48 cents of S. No. 2221, 0.82 cents of S. No. 2208-A and 1 acre 66 cents of Vadaseri lands to a third party on 26th April, 1970 for services rendered to him. Similarly a portion of S. No. 2224 admeasuring 0.31 cents was sold to yet another third party on 23rd April, 1969 for valuable consideration and it was necessary to give effect to these transactions which were subsequent to the impugned order. It was lastly contended by the appellant that his property bearing S. Nos. 1387-A and 1363-A which as subject to mortgage had to be sold on 1st July, 1968, a development subsequent to the impugned order which too had to be noticed in fixing the ceiling area. These transactions, it was said, were protected by S. 21 A of the Act. It was, therefore, submitted that since an appeal was a continuation of the original proceedings it was obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to examine the impact of these subsequent developments and refix the ceiling area. The appellant, however, contended that as third parties would have to be heard before deciding the issue, the proper course was to direct the Authorised Officer to consider the matter afresh in its entirety. The appellate authority negatived all the contentions and dismissed the appeal with costs.
(3.) Thereupon, the appellant approached the High Court by way of a revision application. Before the High Court the contention in regard to the subsequent transactions was confined to the documents executed between 15th February, 1970, the date of commencement of the Act, and 2nd October, 1970, the notified date. That included the two settlement deeds dated 1st October, 1970 made in favour of the unmarried daughters and the sale deed dated 26th April, 1970 executed in favour of a third party. The contention was not pressed in respect of the transaction evidenced by the sale deed dated 23rd April, 1969 in favour of a third party. This contention found favour with the High Court. The High court took the view, relying on an earlier Division Bench judgment in C. R. P. No.1197 of 1971 (Fakir Mohmad v. The State of Tamil Nadu), that "even in respect of proceedings which commenced prior to the coming into force of the amending Act, an affected person can take advantage of the provisions contained in S. 21 A". It was held that while S. 2 of the amending Act reduced the ceiling area to half, benefit was conferred by S. 21 A and hence both the provisions had to be read together. It was, therefore, held that the three documents could not be ignored in fixing the ceiling area unless it is found that the documents were executed to defeat the provisions of the Act, in which case the transactions may be declared void under S. 22 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the High Court directed the Authorised Officer to make further enquiries regarding the said three transactions and pass appropriate orders. The High Court, however, rejected the rest of the contentions by which exclusion was sought, viz., (i) on the conjoint reading of S. 10(3) and S. 3(14) insofar as it concerned Laxminarayanan as a member of the appellant's family; (ii) in regard to lands which were locked in litigation; (iii) in regard to lands in the possession of mortgagees; and (iv) the lands which are covered under S. 73(vii) of the Act. In this view that the High Court took, the matter was remitted to the Authorised Officer in regard to the aforesaid three transactions.;