V S VELLIAPPA CHETTIAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order of the learned Land Tribunal confirming the order of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Ramanathapuram and dismissing the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner. The facts are: The estate called R. M. P. V. Estate owned by late Palaniappa Chettiar of Poolankurchi had extensive lands in Minnamalaipatti and Malavanniaruppu villages. After the death of the original owner Palaniappa Chettiar in the year 1920, his descendants were enjoying the income derived from the estate according to their shares. Some of the descendants of late Palaniappa Chettiar formed a new firm called V. S. R. M. Firm. but the Authorised Officer held that the properties owned by the new firm as well as R. M. P. V. Firm are joint family properties. Some lands owned by the said estate were sold to V. S. R. M. Firm during the period between 6-4-1960 and 2-10-1962. The partners of V. S. R . M firm filed a joint statement before the Authorised Officer wherein they stated that the lands sold to V. S. R. M. firm could be included in their ceiling limit and one of the partners requested the Authorised Officer not to proceed with the enquiry under Section 22 of the Land Reforms Act. Those lands mentioned in. that petition were included within the ceiling limit of the said persons and the Authorised Officer dropped proceedings under Sec. 22 of the Act. The learned Authorised Officer issued notice under S. 9 (2) (b) of the Act to the partners of V. S. R. M. firm and also to R. M. P. V. Subramania Chettiar and Muthukaruppi Achi who are also the descendants of Palaniappa Chettiar for enquiry. The matter was enquired into and the Authorised Officer passed an, order declaring 83-04 standard acres as surplus lands to be surrendered by these persons. Aggrieved by the said decision, they filed an appeal before the Land Tribunal who dismissed the appeal observing -that 'there are no merits in the appeal'. It is against that order of the Tribunal that this revision is filed.

(2.) Two points were raised before the Tribunal and one was that the enquiry should have been conducted under the amended Act and the next point was that the statement Med by the partners of V. S. R. M. firm were not made voluntarily and that the partners were 'under the erroneous impression that all the transfers made between the date of commencement of the Act and the notified date for void'. Both these contentions were negatived by the Land Tribunal. Now, it is contended by the learned counsel Mr.S. V.Jayaraman, appearing for the revision petitioners that these admissions in the statement were made by the petitioners in ingonrance of law and on an erroneous impression that all the transfers made between the date of commencement of the Act and the notified date are void and as such those statements can never be called voluntary statements so as to bind the petitioners. The learned counsel further contended that the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), failed to note that the enquiry under Section 22 was mandatory and that notwithstanding the statements made by the petitioners In regard to the alienations, the Authorised Officer ought to have proceeded with the enquiry under Section. 22 and should have determined whether the transfers would defeat the provisions of the Act.

(3.) It is necessary now to refer to, the statements filed in this case. (The statement at page 401 of the Authorised officers' file, Volume I is by Meenakshi Achi). The statement runs thus- "In reply to your above notice, I submit that I have sold the following lands to the persons mentioned therein under duly registered sale deed. These sales of lands are bona fide and are not made contrary to the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. I agree that these lands may be Included in the land which will form part of the ceiling area for winch I am entitled under S. 5 (1) of the Act. Necessary entries may be made and the sale of lands may be treated as valid. As I am willing to, keep all the lands sold after 6-4-1960, within my ceiling limit, I request that the enquiry under Section 22 need not be proceeded with." To the same effect is the statement of Valliappa Chettiar and also of Chokalingam, Chettiar, but both Valliappa Chettiar and Chockalingam, Chettiar have not stated that the enquiry under S. 22 need not be proceeded with. Only Meenakshi Achi has stated so. The question is whether the Authorised Officer could drop the proceedings under S. 22 of the Act