ORDER S. Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act 57 of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for determining the cultivating tenant's ceiling area of the petitioner and revision of the surplus lands to the second-respondent. There are certain extents demised by the second-respondent by way of lease to and in favour of the petitioner. To determine the cultivating tenant's ceiling area of the petitioner in the above proceedings, the extents held by his sons are sought to be tacked on to the extents held by the petitioner under the cover of Section 6-A of the Act. Section 2(6) of the Act defines cultivating tenant's ceiling area as follows: 2(6) 'cultivating tenant's ceiling area' means five standard acres held by any person (a)(i) partly as cultivating tenant; and (ii) partly as owner or possessory mortgage; or (b) Wholly as cultivating tenant. Section 6-A was introduced into the Act only by Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1973 and the said provision reads as follows: 6-A. Cultivating Tenant's Ceiling Area of a Person to Include his Spouse's Minors Son's, or Unmarried Daughter's Holding: In calculating the extent of the person for the purpose of this Act, the extent of land held as cultivating tenant or as owner or as possessory mortgage by such person, his spouse, minor son and unmarried daughter shall not exceed five standard acres. 2. Mr. K. Yamunan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that amongst the concerned extents there is an extent of 2.46 acres acquired on 21.8.1969 by the three sons of the Petitioner who were then minors; but on the date when Section 6-A was introduced by the Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1973, two of the three minor sons had attained majority and hence their shares cannot be tacked on to the holdings of the petitioner to determine his cultivating tenant's ceiling area. Learned Counsel complains that though this contention was put forth by the petitioner both before the original authority and the appellate authority, the first-respondent herein, it was not properly adverted to and adjudicated upon and this has resulted in an unjust and an unsustainable order having come to be made while determining the petitioner's cultivating tenant's ceiling area. Learned Counsel complains that though this contention was put forth by the petitioner both before the original authority and the appellate authority, the first-respondent herein, it was not properly adverted to and adjudicated upon and this has resulted in an unjust and an unsustainable order having come to be made while determining the petitioner's cultivating tenant's ceiling area. I find that the petitioner did raise this contention before the authorities under the Act, But it has not found proper advertence to or adjudication upon at the hands of any of them. In the present writ petition, the order passed by the appellate authority, the first respondent, is being put in issue. 3. Section 6-A was introduced only by Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1973. It is only by the introduction of Section 6-A as above, the extent held by the minor son of the cultivating tenant is also directed to be taken into account while determining the cultivating tenant's ceiling area. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that if on the date when Section 6-A was introduced in 1973, the two sons of the petitioner had become majors, as claimed by the petitioner, it will not be proper to include the extents relatable to their shares in the lands purchased on 21.8.1969, in the petitioner's holdings to arrive at his cultivating tenant's ceiling area, and learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 6-A introduced only in 1973 cannot be given effect to retrospectively. There is force in this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. There is nothing to indicate in Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1973 that Section 6-A was intended to be in the statute book from the original date of enactment of the Act itself. The definition of a cultivating tenant's ceiling area as per Section 2(6) of the Act itself does not take in the extent held by a minor son of a cultivating tenant. It is only by virtue of Section 6-A introduced by Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1973, by legal fiction, the extent held by a minor son gets tacked on to the extents held by the cultivating tenant. It is only by virtue of Section 6-A introduced by Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1973, by legal fiction, the extent held by a minor son gets tacked on to the extents held by the cultivating tenant. 4 Prior to the introduction of Section 6-A into the Act by Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1973, for determination of the cultivating tenant's ceiling area, one had to fall back only upon its definition found in Section 2(6) of the Act. That definition did not count the extent of the land held by the minor son of a cultivating tenant. Hence, as per the old law, there would have been a possibility that the extent of the land held by a person as a cultivating tenant did not exceed his ceiling area and there was no question of reversion to the public trust of any land in excess of the cultivating tenant's ceiling area. As per Section 7 of the Act, where on the notified date, the cultivating tenant held any land in excess of the cultivating tenant's ceiling area, such excess ought to revert to the public trust. That cultivating ceiling area had to be determined, as per Section 2(8) only prior to the amendment in 1973, without taking in the extent of the land held by his minor sort But when Section 6A got introduced in 1973, making the extent of the land held by the minor son also to be included-in the holding of the cultivating tenant, it is the case of the petitioner that two of his minor sons had attained majority on that date and their shares cannot be tacked on to the holding of the petitioner, for the purpose of determining his cultivating tenant's ceiling area. It is true that notified date is the decisive date for the purpose of determining the question of reversion of the land in excess of the cultivating tenant's ceiling area. Could it be stated that Section 6-A brought in by the Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1973 must be given effect to retrospectively? In the Interregnum, there would be cases of the minor son attaining majority or the minor, son alienating his interests to third parties or the minor son dying, leaving his land to devolve by succession by testament or interstate. In the Interregnum, there would be cases of the minor son attaining majority or the minor, son alienating his interests to third parties or the minor son dying, leaving his land to devolve by succession by testament or interstate. Would it be proper in those and similar circumstances to go back nationally to the notified date and find out as to whether on that date there was a minor son of the cultivating tenant, who held any extent of land, so that it could be added on to the holding of the cultivating tenant to determine the cultivating tenant's ceiling area, and then if any excess is found, to revert it to the public trust. That would result in divesting rights, which got vested in the interregnum. 5. The relevant question is as to whether Section 8-A brought in by Tamil Nadu Act XV of 2973 was intended to be effective retrospectively. Should it be taken that the Amendment itself must be deemed to have been in existence on and from the date of the original Act? That would be imputing to the Amendment a retrospective operation, which could be only done. If such retrospective operation is given to the Amendment Act, either expressly or by necessary implication. In this context, I would like to advert to the principles taken note of by Courts to govern the question as to when an Act or Amendment thereto could be considered as retrospective in operation. It is true the Legislature has the power to give retrospective operation to an Act and that would, of course, interfere with vested rights and the Legislature cannot be stated to be lacking such a power. Ass Amending Act is not to be construed so as to have a greater retrospective operation than its language renders necessary. The necessary intendment justifying retrospective operation of a Statute must be gathered or collected from the language used in the Statute or the provision concerned. It has always been countenanced that a retrospective operation is not to be given to a Statute so as to impair an existing right or obligation unless it appears by express words or by plain implication that it was the intention of the Legislature. Clear terms ought to be used if it is intended to divest a vested right. It has always been countenanced that a retrospective operation is not to be given to a Statute so as to impair an existing right or obligation unless it appears by express words or by plain implication that it was the intention of the Legislature. Clear terms ought to be used if it is intended to divest a vested right. Where as Amendment affects vested rights, the Amendment would Prima Facie operate prospectively only, unless it is expressly made retrospective or its retrospective operation followers as a matter necessary implication. In other words, statutory provisions taking away substantive rights are ordinarily prospective, The normal rule of interpretation is that unless the amending law indicates clearly that the intention of the Legislature was to make it retrospective, Courts do not generally view such law as being retrospective. In particular, where parties have acquired certain valuable rights under the old laws the Court have always refused to deprive parties of their rights by interpreting the change in the law as retrospective, unless, of course, the legislature clearly said so. 6. I have been taken through Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1973. There is nothing in that Act to spell out the theory that Section 6-A was intended to be retrospective in operation. I also perused the statement of objects and reasons for enacting Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1973. There is no indication that Section 6-A to be introduced should operate retrospectively. As already noted, very many changes would have come in vesting and divesting rights in respect of the holding of a minor son of a cultivating tenant, prior to the introduction of Section 6-A in 1973, and to reopen them, to unsettle them and then to effectuate the legal fiction retrospectively, would result in those rights being adversely affected. There is no such intendment evident in the Amending Act and there is no warrant to imply such an intendment. 7. Then the question is should not the authorities under the Act taking note of the above principles advert to and adjudicate upon the factual contention raised by the petitioner that on the date of the coming into force of Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1973, introducing Section 6-A into the Act, two of his minor sons had attained majority and hence their shares in the land concerned should not be tacked on. It has been already noticed that though the petitioner raised this contention before the authorities under the Act, that has not been properly adverted to and adjudicated upon by any of them. There is a need to probe into the factual aspect in the back ground of the above legal principle and then consider the matter afresh and pass a decision thereon. Hence, this writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the file of the Special Deputy Collector (Public Trusts), Thiruvarur-since he is the original authority-for fresh consideration and disposal in the light of the above direction and in accordance with law. The said authority to whom a copy of this order shall also be marked, shall permit the petitioner to substantiate his case that two of his sons, who were minor vendees under the sale deed dated 21.8.1969 had attained majority when Section 6-A was introduced into the Act. by Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1973. The original authority shall also afford opportunity to the second-respondent to demonstrate that the above case of the petitioner could not be accepted on facts. If the original authority should come to the conclusion that in fact two of the sons of the petitioner, who were minor vendees under the sale deed dated 21.8.1969 had attained majority as above, then the extent relatable to their shares in the land covered by the said sale deed shall be excluded and thereafter the original authority shall proceed to determine the cultivating tenant's ceiling area of the petitioner, if there is still a warrant for it. There will be no order as to costs in this writ petition.