Judgment :- 1. In respect of the holdings of agricultural lands belonging to the third respondent, action was initiated under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 58 of 1961, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. A final statement under S. 12 of the Act and the notification under S 18(1) of the Act were published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 23-2-1966 and 9-31966 respectively. According to the petitioner, in the said final statement, an extent of 3.57 acres in R.S. No. 95 was included in the retainable extent of lands of the third respondent. By a Sale Deed dated 30-3-1964, the said land in R.S. No. 95 was purchased by the 4th respondent herein. By a further document dated 26-3-1968, the petitioner and his wife purchased the said lands from the 4th respondent. While so, a revision of the final statement in respect of the holdings of the third respondent was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 4-6-1980. In this revised statement, the said extent of 3.75 acres in R.S. No. 95 has been declared as surplus lands of the third respondent. The petitioner, therefore, preferred a revision petition R.P. No. 120 of 1980 before the second respondent. The second respondent dismissed the revision petition by an order dated 23-9-1982. The present writ petition is to quash the said order dated 23-9-1982. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In the impugned order of the second respondent, it is pointed out that as per the directions of the Land Commissioner made in R.P. No. 184/1979 and as per the judgment of the Land Tribunal, the final statement bad to be revised. Apparently, certain purchasers of lands from the third respondent, which land has been declared as surplus land, had approached the authorities for releasing their lands from acquisition by the Government. On aocount of the release of the said lands, some other lands of the third respondent had to be shown as surplus. It is under these circumstances that the lands purchased by the petitioner had come to be shown as surplus lands in the revised statement dated 4-6-1980. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the land owner had sold away the entire lands and the sales were made after 2-10-1962. It is under these circumstances that the lands purchased by the petitioner had come to be shown as surplus lands in the revised statement dated 4-6-1980. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the land owner had sold away the entire lands and the sales were made after 2-10-1962. Therefore, the authorities had to arrange the sales date wise and the lands covered by the later sales were kept within the ceiling limit of the land owner chronologically from the last sale It is under these circumstances, that the transactions originally effected by the land owner in the year 1964 to and in favour of the 4th respondent had to be declared as surplus. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that before revision of the final statement, the petitioner must have been given a notice. According to the petitioner, in as much as his interest is being affected, he ought to have been given a notice before the final statement was sought to be revised. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that notice was issued to the 4th respondent because he was the only purchaser from the land-holder (3rd respondent). It is not obligatory on the part of the Authorised Officer to issue notice to the second and subsequent purchasers. It is also contended that there is no other un-unencumbered land to be kept within the ceiling area of the landholder. It is also contended that the reason for the revision of the final statement was because some of the purchasers were entitled to get the benefit of S. 23 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 1974 and therefore those lands were included in the retainable holdings of the third respondent. 4. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments on both sides, especially on the question whether the petitioner was entitled to notice before the final statement was revised. On the date when the final statement was sought to be revised, it is not disputed that R.S. No. 95 of the extent of 3.57 aeres was within the retainable holdings of the third respondent. If this land is to be brought out of the retainable extent and shown as surplus, the immediate consequence is that the Government has a right to acquire the said land. If this land is to be brought out of the retainable extent and shown as surplus, the immediate consequence is that the Government has a right to acquire the said land. Therefore, the owner, of the land as on the date of the revision should be given notice and bis ex-planation obtained before he is visited with civil consequences. It is no answer to say that the petitioners vendor, the 4th respondent herein, had been given notice. The 4th respondent certainly will not object to the revision because on the date he had no interest over the land Even assuming, that the authorised officer has a right to work out the piiorities among the several transferees from the holder of the lands, it has to be done only after notice to the interested persons. In fact, the contention of the petitioner is that he has a better claim over the persons whose lands have now been brought within the retainable extent of the third respondent, Vvhether this claim is justified or not, I am inclined to think that the owner of the land which is sought to be declared as surplus by way of a revision of the final statement, is entitled to notice. On the date of the revision of the final statement, it is not disputed that the petitioner was the owner of the land, he having purchased the land by a registered document No. 537/68 dated 26-3-1968. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the second respondent to whom the matter shall stand remanded, will dispose of the matter afresh in the light of the observations in this order. If necessary, he may remand the matter to the first respondent sc that a notice may be issued to the petitioner and his objections are heard before finally deciding as to which of the lands should be declared as surplus and which of the lands should be shows as within the retainable extent of the third respondent. No Costs. If necessary, he may remand the matter to the first respondent sc that a notice may be issued to the petitioner and his objections are heard before finally deciding as to which of the lands should be declared as surplus and which of the lands should be shows as within the retainable extent of the third respondent. No Costs. Kanakaraj, J. (19-7 1991) The writ petition is being posted today “for being mentioned.” The learned counsel for the fifth respondent who has been im pleaded in the writ petition, seeks a direc tion that the compensation amount payable to the owners should be disbursed at an early date and the pendency of the present proceedings need not delay the payment of compensation to them. Accordingly, I direct respondents 1 and 2 not to postpone the payment of compensation any further because the present proceedings have no relation to t he payment of compensation to the owners.