Judgment :- 1. On an application filed by the petitioners herein under S. 17 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961, seeking reversion of certain extent of land from his tenant (the first respondent herein), the Authorised Officer held that the tenant owns more than five standard acres and, therefore, the lands in excess of the tenants ceiling area of 5 standard acres should revert to the petitioners. On an appeal filed by the tenant the Tribunal held that even if the tenant is in possession of more than the tenants ceiling area, such excess land will have to be taken over by the Authorised Officer as per the provisions contained in Chapter VIII and that the lands cannot revert to the petitioners under S. 17 of the Act. In this view, the Tribunal remitted the matter for fresh disposal by the Authorised Officer after considering the fresh evidence that may be deuced by the parties. 2. The petitioners have challenged the said decision of the Land Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal is in error in holding that S. 17 of the Act cannot come into operation on the facts of this case and that even if there are excess lands over and above the tenants ceiling area the same cannot revert to the petitioners under S. 17, but have to be taken over and dealt with by the Authorised Officer under the provisions of Chapter VIII. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the view taken by the Tribunal is quite contrary to the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Visalam v. Addl. Authorised Officer 80 L.W. 100. In the said decision, the identical question that has been dealt with by the Tribunal was considered and decided by the Division Bench. There it was held that where a cultivating tenants holding is in excess of the tenants ceiling area of 5 standard acres, the excess can be taken over by the Authorised officer under S. 62 of the Act. But, if the excess is less than the ceiling area allowed to a landowner, to the limit of the difference to make up 15 standard acres, the land in excess of the permissible holding in the hands of the cultivating tenant will revert to such landowner. But, if the excess is less than the ceiling area allowed to a landowner, to the limit of the difference to make up 15 standard acres, the land in excess of the permissible holding in the hands of the cultivating tenant will revert to such landowner. The said decision, if I may say so with respect, gives due effect to both S. 17 and S. 62 of the Act, and proceeds on the basis that to the extent S. 17 operates, S. 62 cannot operate and that where S. 17 cannot operate, S. 62 can be invoked by the Authorised Officer to have possession of the lands in excess of the tenants ceiling area. On the other hand, the decision rendered by the Tribunal does not give effect to the provisions of S. 17 at all and treats S. 62 as being dominant and as superseding S. 17, which specifically provides for reversion to the land owner of the land in excess of the tenants eeiling area, subject to the limitation contained in S. 5. As a matter of fact, the Division Bench has clearly stated that S. 62 should be read subject to S. 17 which means that S. 17 will prevail over chapter VIII. In view of the said decision which specifically deals with the relatire scope and object of S. 17 and S. 62 of the Act and holds that S. 17 will prevail over S. 62, the view taken by the Tribunal in this case that even if there is excess land, the same cannot revert to the landowner, but will have to be taken over by the Authorised Officer as per the procedure set out in Chapter VIII cannot be accepted. The view of the Tribunal is not only contrary to the decision referred to above, but clearly overlooks the object with which and the purpose for which S. 17 has been introduced in the statute. S. 17 on the face of it clearly enables the landowner to have the excess landa reverted to him subject to the extent to which the lands held by him after such reversion are not liable to be declared as surplus lands in accordance with S. 5 of the Act. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal dealing with the relative scope of S. 5 and S. 62 cannot be sustained as valid. 3. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal dealing with the relative scope of S. 5 and S. 62 cannot be sustained as valid. 3. The learned Counsel for the first respondent would however point out that the main contention before the Tribunal in the appeal before it was that the Authorised Officer was in error in holding that the first respondent was having more than the tenants ceiling area, that a partition decree passed by a Civil Court showing the allotment of the properties between himself and the other members of his family has not been taken into account at all, and that if the lands allotted in the said partition decree is taken into account, there will not be any surplus over and above the tenants ceiling area. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal does not indicate that the said first respondents contention was considered and debit with by it. Though the Authorised Officer refers to the partition decree, of course, without much discussion, the Tribunal does not even refer to the partition decree. The Tribunal does not even say that it either accepts the findings of the Authoristd Officer on the extent of the tenants holding or does not accept the finding. The Tribunal merely proceeds on the basis that even if there is any excess extent, it will have to be dealt with only under the provisions of Chapter VIII. This is not a proper disposal of the appeal filed by the first respondent. 4. When the first respondent specifically questions the finding of the Authorised Officer as regards the extent of his holding and says that his holding is in fact less than the tenants ceiling area, that question has to be decided one way or the other before going into the applicability of the provisions of Chapter VIII. In this case, the Tribunal considered the question of applicability of the provisions of Chapter VIII without giving a finding of its own on the question of the extent of the tenants holding. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal has to be set a side with a direction to the Tribunal to consider the said contentions of the first respondent herein, if necessary, after taking the evidence adduced by both parties, if any, and dispose of the appeal on the basis of the evidence adduced and as per the directions given above. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal has to be set a side with a direction to the Tribunal to consider the said contentions of the first respondent herein, if necessary, after taking the evidence adduced by both parties, if any, and dispose of the appeal on the basis of the evidence adduced and as per the directions given above. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.