Judgment :- NATARAJAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State to canvass the correctness of the order of Mohan, j., in W.P. 209 of 1979 filed by the respondent herein. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition and granted a rule for quashing the order of the appellant herein in B.P. No. F.2. 102/74, dated 16-11-1976. 2. The circumstances under which the respondent invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking a writ of certiorari can be briefly set out as under. Or the date of the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, Act LVIII of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, viz., 6th April, 1960 the respondent was holding 286.21 ordinary acres, equivalent to 82.774 standard acres and his wife was owning 43.41 ordinary acres, equivalent to 28.552 standard acres. After granting exceptions and allowing a ceiling limit of 40 standard acres for the family, the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms, Madurai) declared an extent of 250.31 ordinary acres, equivalent to 67.532 standard acres as surplus. The notification under S. 18(1) of the Act was published in the Government Gazette dated 2nd (Any, 1973. The surplus lands were taken possession of by the Government between the period 8th June, 19/3, and 19th July 1973. 3. After the lands had been taken possession of, the respondent filed a revision petition through his power agent. On 28th March, 1974, and sought the deletion of the following items of lands from the notification under S. 18(1) of the Act, on the ground that the lands were non-agricultural lands and should, therefore have been exempted while reckoning the total extent of the holdings of his family. The particulars of the lands for which exemption was sought for are as under Village S. No. Classification Extent Nature of occupation lsalani 56/3-A wet 6.14 pathway 56/6-A wet 0.88 pathway 69/2 dry 0.09 flat 61/7 dry 1.46 flat 61/9 dry 0.12 rocky 63/4 dry 3.66 village habitation 66/1-A dry 1.47 Storage of hayricks 66/12 dry 0.38 Panchayat Union School 7.48 Thatchanendal 12/3-B (part) dry 2.00 Harijan colony 9.40 4. During the pendency of the revision, it was conceded by the power agent of the respondent that S. Nos. During the pendency of the revision, it was conceded by the power agent of the respondent that S. Nos. 56/5A, 56/8A, 61/7 and 61/9 of lsalani village were lands under actual cultivation and as such, the claim for exemption was not pressed in respect of these lands. In so far as the other items of lands are concerned, the claim for exemption was pressed on the ground that they were non-cultivable lands, because they constituted either (i) road and channel on ground, or (ii) house sites on ground where houses had been built, or (iii) where a Panchayat Union School had been built. 5. The Land Commissioner, while declining to grant the exemption sought for, had passed a somewhat curious order. The Land Commissioner has held that there was no proof that the lands were eligible for exemption on the crucial date, viz., 6th April, 1960, but, as according to the land owner, they were lands unfit for cultivation, the proper course to be followed is to direct the Authorised Officer to include these lands in the extent of the holding of the land owner and seek substitution of a orresponding extent of land from the cultivable lands included in the holding of the land owner. The operative portion of the Land Commissioners order is as under: “While therefore the claim for exemption, which has to be with reference to the state on ground on 6th April, 1960 fails, if on ground today, there are buildings, the land cannot be assigned for cultivation purposes. Therefore, with reference to second proviso to S. 10(4) of the Act, such lands should not be declared as surplus land should be left within the ceiling to be retained by the land owner. Such lands will be included within the ceiling to be retained by the land owner and other lands suitable for assignment for cultivation purposes declared as surplus. The Authorised Officer is directed to issue suitable amendments to final statement under S. 12 and notification under S. 18 (1)”. Such an order naturally left the respondent in an unhappy state, because far from getting the relief which he sought for, he was called upon to take back the lands not fit for cultivation and compensate the Government by surrendering an equivalent extent of cultivable land from out of his holdings. Such an order naturally left the respondent in an unhappy state, because far from getting the relief which he sought for, he was called upon to take back the lands not fit for cultivation and compensate the Government by surrendering an equivalent extent of cultivable land from out of his holdings. Therefore, the respondent filed W.P. 209 of 1977 and sought as writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Land Commissioner. The learned single Judge, as already stated, has sustained the grievance of the respondent issued a rule. But the learned Judge has not given reasons for allowing the writ petition. All that he has stated is that the order of the Land Commissioner is wholly without jurisdiction and that in the exercise) of powers under the Act, the Land Commissioner is either entitled to allow the revision or to dismiss it, but he had no power to compel the land owner to give some other land in exchange for the lands for which exemption was sought for. 6. In the appeal preferred before us, the learned Government Advocate would say that the Land Commissioner was justified in passing the order impugned by the respondent and as such, the learned single Judge was not correct in saying that the Land Commissioner did not have power under the Act to pass an order for exchange of cultivable lands for non-cultivable lands. The Government Advocate would say that as per the scheme of the Act, surplus cultivable lands have to be taken over and distributed to the landless persons and since the lands for which exemption was sought for are admittedly non-cultivable lands, the Land Commissioner is well within his rights in asking the Authorised Officer to reopen the proceedings and include the non-cultivable lands in the holding of the land owner and take in return a corresponding extent of cultivable lands. 7. We are clearly of the view that neither the order passed by the Land Commissioner nor the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate can be sustained. To understand the claim of the respondent and the error committed by the Land Commissioner, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Act. The Act has been passed for fulfilling the objectives contained in clauses (b) and (c) of Art. 39 of the Constitution of India. To understand the claim of the respondent and the error committed by the Land Commissioner, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Act. The Act has been passed for fulfilling the objectives contained in clauses (b) and (c) of Art. 39 of the Constitution of India. The objective is for the State to take steps to see that the ownership and control of the material resources of the country are distributed as best to subserve the common good and that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. As an integral part of the scheme, the state has been enjoined to remove the disparity in the ownership of agricultural lands leading to the concentration of each land in the hands of certain persons and to acquire surplus land concentrated in the hands of tome persons and distribute it to the landless and other deserving persons among the rural population. In conformity with the object of the Act, the word ‘land’ has been defined in S. 3(22) as meaning agricultural land, i.e., land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto. The definition has been made to include forest land, pasture land, plantation and tope but house site or land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes has been specifically excluded. Sec. 5 prescribes the ceiling area for different kinds of owners. S. 7 is the operative section which lays down that on and from the date of the commencement of the Act, no person will be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area. Sec. 8 relates to the furnishing of returns by persons holding land in excess of the ceiling area and Sec. 9 deals with the collection of information. Then comes S. 10 which deals with the preparation and publication of draft statement as regards land in excess of the ceiling area. S. 11 empowers the Authorised Officer to decide the question of title in certain cases. Then comes S. 12 under which a publication of a final statement is to be made. The next relevant section to be mentioned is S. 18 which provides for the Government taking over the surplus land in terms of the publication of final statement under S. 12 or 14. Then comes S. 12 under which a publication of a final statement is to be made. The next relevant section to be mentioned is S. 18 which provides for the Government taking over the surplus land in terms of the publication of final statement under S. 12 or 14. S. 18A provides for the inclusion of any land which had inadvertently escaped the notice of the authorities from being included in the extent of holdings owned by the land owner. Sec. 18B confers power on Government to modify the notification under Sec. 19(1) consequent on corrections being made under S. 15. S. 18C confers power on the Government to cancel or modify notification under S. 18(1) in certain cases. S. 18D and 18E are consequential provisions which relate to divesting and vesting of land excluded or newly included, as the case may be. 8. Reverting now to S. 7 which is the operative section, it forbids any person governed by the Act to hold land in excess of the ceiling area from the date of the commencement of the Act. Therefore, it follows that a person is entitled to hold the permitted extent of land which falls within the ceiling area, and such extent of land should satisfy the definition of ‘land’ under S. 3(22) of the Act i.e., land which is actually put to agricultural use or capable of being put to agricultural use. In the same manner, it must be held that what can be taken over by Government as surplus can only be a land falling within the definition of S. 3(22), Such being the case, if a land owner is found to be in possession of a certain extent of land which is not put to agricultural use or which is not capable of being put to such use, then that extent of land has to be excluded from computation of the total extent of the building, because the scheme of the Act is only to take over surplus agricultural land and distribute it to landless agriculturists and poor people in rural areas. It is from that perspective the Land Commissioner should have viewed the revision petition filed by the respondent. 9. It is from that perspective the Land Commissioner should have viewed the revision petition filed by the respondent. 9. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that ‘After granting exemptions and allowing ceiling limits of 40.00 standard acres for the family, the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Madurai, declared an extent of 250.31 ordinary acres equivalent to 67.582 standard acrees as surplus.” Thus the counter affidavit itself concedes the position that lands which were not agricultural lands could neither be include in the extent of the holdings of the land owner nor taken over as surplus by Government but have to be treated as exempted category of land which has to be kept out of reckoning when preparing the statements under the Act. The revision filed by the respondent was to seek inclusion of the Specified survey fields also in the category of exempted lands. Even if the respondent had Failed to claim exemption of those lands when the draft statements were prepared under S. 10, he is entitled to such exemption at a later stage also, i.e., even after the publication of the field statement under S. 18, because Ss. 18-A, 18-B and 18-C provide for certain modifications being made even after final statements had been prepared and published in the Government Gazette under S. 22, a revision would lie to the Land Commissioner in respect of proceedings under S. 18(4) also besides other sections contained therein. Such being the case, the respondent is entitled under the Act to seek exemption of certain lands which are non-agricultural lands, on the ground that they had been wrongly treated as agricultural lands and declared as surplus and taken possession of, when such a claim is made, the proper course for the Land Commissioner is to examine the claim on merits, i.e., firstly see whether the lands are non-agricultural lands in this case claimed to be channel-cum-road portion, house sites and building sites where houses and school have been built—and secondly to see whether those lands had been put to such use on the crucial date, viz., 6th April, 1960. If both the tests are satisfied, then, the exemption sought for should be granted and suitable modification should be made in terms of S. 18-C. If the tests are not satisfied, then, the claim for exemption cannot be sustained and it has to be rejected. If both the tests are satisfied, then, the exemption sought for should be granted and suitable modification should be made in terms of S. 18-C. If the tests are not satisfied, then, the claim for exemption cannot be sustained and it has to be rejected. Instead of doing so, the Land Commissioner has passed a strange order. He has accepted the claim of the respondent that the lands are not agricultural lands. But, at the same time, he has called upon the Authorised Officer to restore these lands to the respondent and instead, take back from him a corresponding extent of agricultural lands, so that they can be assigned to landless persons. Under the Act, the Land Commissioner does not have the power to seek substitution of non-agricultural lands wrongly included in the surplus area by agricultural lands included within the ceiling area of the land owner. It is presumably on account of this position, the learned Single Judge has held that the order passed by the Land Commissioner is wholly without jurisdiction. 10. Thus, on an examination of the relevant provisions of the Act, we, find that the order of the Land Commissioner cannot be sustained, because he does not have power under the Act to pass such an order. We do not, therefore, see any merit in the appeal preferred by the State and it deserves to fail. But, before dismissing the appeal, we should also indicate the future course of action that has to be followed. By reason of the quashing of the order of the Land Commissioner, the revision filed by the respondent will stand restored. The Land Commissioner will deal with it in accordance with law. He should, therefore, call for a report from the Authorised Officer regarding the claim of the land owner that S. Nos. 60/2, 63/4, 66/1A and 66/1B of Islami village, and S. No. 12/3B (part) of Thackenandal village were non-agricultural lands on the relevant date, viz., 6th April, 1960, and, should therefore be treated as exempted lands and included in the category of exempted lands and allowed to be retained by the land owner. 60/2, 63/4, 66/1A and 66/1B of Islami village, and S. No. 12/3B (part) of Thackenandal village were non-agricultural lands on the relevant date, viz., 6th April, 1960, and, should therefore be treated as exempted lands and included in the category of exempted lands and allowed to be retained by the land owner. The Authorised Officer should hold an enquiry and afford an opportunity to the land owner to substantiate his claim In the event of the Authorised Officer finding the claim for exemption to be true and genuine, he should submit a report to the Land Commissioner and the Land Commissioner should then pass orders granting exemption to the respondent and directing appropriate modifications to be made in the final statement under S. 18-C of the Act. In the event of the land owner failing to substantiate his claim, it goes without saying that the claim for exemption should be rejected and the revision petition dismissed. 11. With the above directions, the writ appeal will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The Land Commissioner will pass orders in the revision petition in accordance with the directions given herein within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.