ORDER.-In this petition, there is no dispute that the Tamil Nadu Land Ceiling Act LVIII of 1961 has to be applied to the facts. The holding of a landlord has to be determined as on 6th April, 1960. The notified date is 2nd October, 1962. Notifications under sections 12 and 14 have not been issued. The question arose whether a sale effected by the landlord after 6th April, 1960, but before the notified date and in any event before the notification under section 12, has to be considered or not for purposes of fixing the quantum of the land-holding. The transaction being a sale, the petitioners ought to have produced the sale-deed or any substituted evidence therefor before the Authorised Officer. He did not do so. But they produced the same before the appellate Authority, namely, the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge, Mayuram). The learned Judge rejected the said document and did not consider it as he was of the view that Tamil Nadu Act LVIII of 1961, and not Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1970 would apply to the facts of this case. Secondly, the Officer was of the view that a partition between the members of the family on 29th April, 1970 cannot be taken into consideration at all as it was a partition deed after 6th April, 1970. For these two reasons, the Tribunal did not interfere with the order of the Authorised Officer. As against this, the present civil revision petition has been filed. As regards the first point where under the Land Tribunal (sic) refused to consider for all purposes the sale deed under which the land-holder is said to have sold about 3 acres and 66 cents on 16th June, 1962, there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Section 22 does not lay down an embargo on the consideration of such sales particularly to discover therefrom whether the sale was a motivated sale or a designed sale. If such a sale effected by the landholder is for the purpose of circumventing the law and the Act in question, then it could be ignored. If. however it is a fair, simple and genuine sale, it could be taken into account by the Authorised Officer. If such a sale effected by the landholder is for the purpose of circumventing the law and the Act in question, then it could be ignored. If. however it is a fair, simple and genuine sale, it could be taken into account by the Authorised Officer. That this is the effect of section 22 of the Act is seen from a decision rendered by Ramanujam, J., in Naganatha Ayyar v. Authorised Officer1. The learned Judge observed as follows: “Section 22 has to be construed as one intended to invalidate transfers entered into only with a view to defeat the provisions of the Act without a bona fide intention to transfer title under the document of transfer.” I shall adopt the ratio of this decision of the learned Judge. 2. Then the question arises whether the mere circumstance that the sale deed was not produced before the Authorised Officer, but only before the Appellate Authority would disentitle the petitioners from pursuing their remedies to satisfy the statutory authorities that the sale deed is a genuine one and that the subject-matter of the sale deed ought to be excluded for the purpose of fixing the ceiling limit. As law is always tempered with mercy and justice is a product of such merciful application of law, the Appellate Authority should have given an opportunity to the petitioners to refer to the sale-deed dated 16th June, 1962 and satisfy, if they could, that it was a genuine one. This opportunity was not given to the petitioners. To that extent, there is a material irregularity in the order which has to be corrected. 3. A reference could also be made to section 78 (3) (c) of the Act which enables the Appellate Authority to consider additional evidence if the situation warrants. 4. As regards the second point, there is no substance in it having regard to the amendment of section 23 itself by Tamil Nadu Act XXXII of 1974. 3. A reference could also be made to section 78 (3) (c) of the Act which enables the Appellate Authority to consider additional evidence if the situation warrants. 4. As regards the second point, there is no substance in it having regard to the amendment of section 23 itself by Tamil Nadu Act XXXII of 1974. By the amended Act, a retrospective effect was given to the new provision made under it under amended provision 23 (b) of the Act and any sub-division whether by a partition or otherwise effected on or after the notified date and before the publication of a notification under sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Act shall be deemed to have been void, and accordingly the Authorised Officer shall calculate the ceiling area of such person as if no such transfer or sub-division had taken place. This amended provision is retroactively operative. Having regard to the amended provision as above, the decision in B. E. Kaliyaperumal Nattar v. Authorised Officer (L.R.)2 , relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be of any help to them. As the law stands, any partition effected after the Act came into force shall be void and shall be ignored by the Authorised Officer. In these circumstances, the petitioner’s cannot have relief in so far the second point is concerned. 5. The civil revision petition is partly allowed and the subject-matter is remitted to the file of the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge of Mayuram) for a fresh consideration in the light of the observations as above. There will be no order as to costs.