Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a person attracted by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act, 1961 (herein after called the Act), as amended by Tamil Nadu Act, 17 of 1970. After repeated directions given by the first respondent, the petitioner filed a return. S. 8 of the Act on 22-10-1973. On 28-8-1974 an order was passed by the first respondent under S. 9 (2) (b) of the Act. Thereafter, a draft statement under S. 10(1) of the Act proposing to declare an extent of 6.76 ordinary acres as surplus lands was issued. A notice was served on the petitioner, along with a copy of the statement under S. 10(1). The petitioner did not file objections within the prescribed time. A final statement was served on the petitioner on 31-1-1976. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition under S. 82 of the Act. The second respondent, by an order dated 22 61976 partly allowed the revision, directing the first respondent to accept the lands offered by the petitioner, subject to suitability of the lands. There was accordingly a direction to amend the final statement under S. 12 of the Act. 2. The first respondent caused a verification of the suitability of the lands offered by the petitioner. The Special Revenue Inspector, Tirukoilur reported that out of the lands surrendered, the Lands bearing R S. Nos. 76/6 (0 34), 76/7 (1.84) and 76/8 (1.44) comprised in Patta No. 446, which were originally standing in the name of the petitioner, had been subsequently transferred in the name of the Drowpathi Amman Koil, Ammapettai, by an order of the Tahsildar dated 1-4-1976. Therefore, the first respondent issued notice to the petitioner, asking him to attend an enquiry on 26 2-1979 later adjourned to 12-3-1979. The petitioner contended that he has got title for the said lands R.S. Nos. 76/6, 76/7 and 76/8 and therefore, the same should be accepted as surplus lands. The first respondent rejected the said offer on the ground that there was a dispute regarding the possession of the lands. Therefore, the first respondent proceeded to declare certain other lands as surplus lands. 3. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner again filed a revision petition to the Land Commissioner the second respondent herein. The second respondent dismissed the revision petition by order dated 16-10-1982. Therefore, the first respondent proceeded to declare certain other lands as surplus lands. 3. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner again filed a revision petition to the Land Commissioner the second respondent herein. The second respondent dismissed the revision petition by order dated 16-10-1982. The present writ petition is to quash the said order of the second respondent dated 16-101982. 4. The impugned order savs that the lards bearing R.S. Nos. 76/6, 76/7 and 76/8 had been shown by the petitioner as his lands in the return filed by him. It is also stated by the second respondent that the petitioner did not raise any objection to the statement under S. 10(5) of the Act where the lands were showd in the retainable holdings of the petitioner. The petitioner did not also state that there was any dispute over the lands. The question of deciding the dispute under S. 11 of the Act, did not, therefore, arise. The second respondent then refers to the report of the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, dated 13-3-1976 to the effect that the ownership dispute is pending with him. The second respondent, therefore, concludes that on 15-2-1970 the lands were in the possession of the petitioner. The second respondent holds that the lands were transferred to the temple in the year 1973. Therefore, according to the second respondent, S. 2)(1) applies to the facts of the case and under S 23(2). the said lands, so transferred, should be kept in the retainable holdings of the petitioner. The question is whether the reasoning of the second respondent is correct. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner produces before me an order of the Additional Collector, South Arcot dated 2-5-1981. The order relates to the claim for the grant of patta in respect of the lands by the petitioner, on Tmt. Thailammal and the Drowpathi Amman Temple. The petitioner had challenged the grant of patta in favour of tha Temple. Toe Additional Collector held as follows: “Hence. I am neither inclined nor competent to decide the ownership disputes or the lands in question. Since the temple authorities have taken up the issue for the decision in the Civil Court, I feel and I consider that it is but proper to wait for the decision of the Civil Court in the matter. I am neither inclined nor competent to decide the ownership disputes or the lands in question. Since the temple authorities have taken up the issue for the decision in the Civil Court, I feel and I consider that it is but proper to wait for the decision of the Civil Court in the matter. I do not therefore want to interfere with the orders of the Tahsildar Kallakurichi and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vridhachalam at this Juncture. The Revision Petitioner is at liberty to apply for the transfer of patta in his name if he gets a favourable decision from the Civil Court. The Revision petition is therefore, dismissed.” It is therefore, argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that S 11 applies to the case and the lauds should not have been included in the holdings of the petitioner by virtue of S. 13. It is only after the dispute is decided by the Civil Court that an amendment should be made to the final statement under S. 14 of the Act. It is thus clear that the respondents were not aware of any dispute at the time of the statement under S. 10(5) of the Act. But a dispute has subsequently been brought to thei r notice after the final statement was published in the Government Gazette dated 10-12-1976 The suit itself has been filed by the Temple in the year 1979 (OS. No. 111 of 1979) in the Sub Court, Cuddalore. The question is whether Ss. 11 and 13 will come into play or S. 23 will be attracted to the dispute in question. S. 23 of the Act runs as follows:— “23.. No. 111 of 1979) in the Sub Court, Cuddalore. The question is whether Ss. 11 and 13 will come into play or S. 23 will be attracted to the dispute in question. S. 23 of the Act runs as follows:— “23.. Transfers or Sub Divisions made on effec ted before the Publicatio of notification under sub S(1) of S 18.—(1) Subject to the provisions of S. 20, for the purpose of fixing, for the first time (after the date of the commencement of this Act), the ceiling area of any person holding land on the date of the commencement of this Act in excess of (15 standard acres)—, (a) any transfer, whether by sale (including sale in execution of a decree or order of a civil court or of an award or order of any other lawful authority) or by gift (other than gift made in contemplation of death), exchange, surrender, settlement or otherwise; or (b) anv sub division (including sub-division by a decree of ordsr of a civil court or any other lawful authority) whether by partition or otherwise; effected on or after the notified date and before the publication of a notification under sub-S.(1) of S. 1-8 shall be, and shall be deemed always 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, Explanation :— This sub-section shall, on and from the 15th day of February, 1970, have effect as if fot the figures and words, “30 standard acres”, the figures and words “15 standard acres” had been substituted. (2) It shall be the duty of the authorised officer to include the land so transferred or sub-divided, within the ceiling area of the transferor or the person who held the land immediately before such sub-division, as the case may be, as if no such transfer or sub-division had taken place.” From a careful reading of S. 23 of the Act, I am clearly of the opinion that no transfer as contemplated by S. 23 (a) or subdivision as contemplated by S. 23(b) has taken place in this case. All that is seen from the order of the Additional Collector dated 25-5-1981 is that the petitioner and Thailammal were each seeking a patta for the lands but the Tahsildar granted the patta in favour of the Temple. All that is seen from the order of the Additional Collector dated 25-5-1981 is that the petitioner and Thailammal were each seeking a patta for the lands but the Tahsildar granted the patta in favour of the Temple. The question was left open by the Additional Collector to await the decision of the Civil Court in O.S. No 111 of 1979. Therefore, once I hold that S. 23 is not attracted, the impugned order of the second respondent which is based only on S 23, is liable to be set aside. The only other provision that can apply to a situation like this is S. 13 of the Act. This is because all the parties were under the impression that the said lands R.S. Nos. 76/6, 76/7 and 76/8 belonged to the petitioner on the notified date and when the return was filed. Now, that the title pf the petitioner is hanging in the balance in the civil Court, in fairness to the petitioner, the holdings have to be assessed leaving out the disputed lands under S. 13 of the Act. If and when the Civil dispute is over, the final statement can be amended under S. 14 of the Act. 6. 1 have, therefore, no hesitation in setting aside the order of the second respondent dated 16-10-1982 confirming the order of the first respondent dated 27-6-1979. I remit the matter back to the first respondent who will hold a fresh enquiry after giving notice to the petitioner. He can consider the resort to S 13 of the Act and declare the surplus excluding the lands RS Nos. 76/6, 76/7 and 76/8. After the decision of the civil court, it will be open to the first respondent to make necessary corrections under S 14 of the Act. In the alternative, it is open to the first respondent to accept the said lands as part of surplus lands to be taken over bv the Government. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.