T.M ABDUL GANI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF THANJAVUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As on and October, 1962, the date relevant for the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, the family of the petitioner consisted of himself, his wife, three minor sons and two unmarried daughters, and they together held lands of an extent of 193.93 ordinary acres, corresponding to 131.37 standard acres. The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Mayuram, prepared a draft statement under Sec. 10 (1) of the said Act, and published the same stating that the family consisting of six members was eligible to hold 48.97 ordinary acres equivalent to 35 standard acres and 14.06 ordinary acres, equivalent to 10 standard acres of stridhana. Against the draft statement published under Sec. 10 (1) of the Act, the land owner filed an objection petition, and after considering the objection, the Authorised Officer passed orders under Sec. 10 (5) of the Act on 21st April, 1969. Against this order of the Authorised Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Land Tribunal, Mayuram, in C.M.A. No. 35 of 1969. The said Tribunal by its order, dated 28th August, 1970 upheld the finding of the Authorised Officer that all the seven members constituted the family of the petitioner herein and also regarding the determination of surplus of 83.46 acres. However, regarding the selection of surplus land, the Land Tribunal directed the landowner to file a list of lands which he wished to surrender within three weeks from the date of the issue of the order and directed the Authorised Officer to consider such a list before the preparation of the final statement under Sec. 12 of the Act afresh in this case. The petitioner filed the list of lands which he wished to retain within the ceiling of the family. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Land Tribunal as well as the Authorised Officer.

(2.) Mr. Abdul Hadi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1970, which came into force on 23rd June, 1970, has amended the definition of the term 'family' in Sec. 3 (14) of the principal Act, 1961, and that the amended definition read with Sec. 3 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1970 will lead to the conclusion that in calculating the surplus of the family, the property settled on the three minor sons and one unmarried daughter prior to the notified date should be excluded from the holding of the family, and the family itself should be treated as including only the petitioner, his wife and the other unmarried daughter. In my opinion, this argument is without substance. Sec. 3 (14) of the principal Act of 1961, so far as it is relevant, reads that "family" in relation to a person means the person, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her minor sons and unmarried daughters. An Explanation has been added to this definition by Sec. 2, Sub -section (I), Clause (c) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1970. That Explanation, so far as it is relevant, states:

(3.) However, Mr. Hadi contends that Sub -section (1) of Sec. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1970 is subject to the provisions contained in Sub -section (2) of that section, and the petitioner's case will fall within the scope of Sub -section (2) of Sec. 3. I am unable to accept this contention for the simple reason that Sub -section (2) of Sec. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1970 merely provides that even with regard to a person whose case falls within the scope of Sub -section (1), he will not be entitled to hold after the 15th day of February, 1970, land in excess of the ceiling area under the principal Act as modified by Sec. 2 and the provisions of the principal Act as modified by Sec. 2 shall, after the said date, apply to such person. The principal object of Act XVII of 1970 is to reduce the ceiling limit of 30 standard acres provided for in the principal Act of 1961 to 15 standard acres. The object of Ss. 3 (2) of the Act XVII of 1970 is to give effect to this reduced ceiling limit with effect from 15th February, 1970, and, therefore, provides that even when the ceiling limit of any person is determined with reference to the provisions of the principal Act of 1961 under Sec. 3 (1) of Act XVII of 1970, still because of the overriding effect flowing from Sec. 3 (2) of the latter Act, such person can hold land after 15th February, 1970, only subject to the reduced ceiling limit prescribed in Act XVII of 1970. The Land Tribunal has rightly applied Sub -section (1) of Sec. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1970, and, therefore, no interference is called for with the order of the Land Tribunal.