Judgment : The petitioner herein has claimed ownership of an extent of 1.891 standard hectares. She has alleged that she" held the same as her shreedhana acquired exclusively from the funds that she raised out of the presents given to her at the time of her marriage with Kesava Reddiar. She has stated that when the proceedings started under the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), her husband alone was subjected to the proceeding and although the two items of properties that belonged to her were included in the said proceeding, she was not served with any notice of the draft statement and other things, as contemplated under Sec.9(5) of the Act. She was aware of the proceeding against her husband, but she was unaware that her lands were also included in those proceedings. She however learnt only on 30.3.1992 that her husband was found to have held lands in excess of the ceiling area and that in the lands held in excess by him, the lands belonging to her were also included. She further came to know that as far back as 1982, the petitioner had issued the final statement (4. 1982), showing in the schedule of the lands, the lands of her husband, her minor son as well as her lands. 2. Pursuant to a memorandum of appeal against the final statement, thus only in the year 1992, i.e. to say, more than a decade thereafter (under Sec.46 of the Act), she claimed that both the draft statement as well as the final statement, were bad in law inasmuch as her properties were included in the schedule of the properties belonging to her husband and that she was not given any opportunity to make her objections in time against the draft statement and since such an opportunity was denied to her by the petitioner, final statement issued without affording her an opportunity, violated the principles of natural justice. .3. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, has allowed her appeal and has held that the notification under Sec.9(5) of the Act, is in the teeth of an error that she was not given an opportunity of being heard as alleged by her. He has accordingly interfered with the final statement and directed the competent authority to proceed to make a fresh publication under Sec.9(5) of the Act. He has accordingly interfered with the final statement and directed the competent authority to proceed to make a fresh publication under Sec.9(5) of the Act. The Deputy Collector, Revenue (Authorised Officer), has preferred this petition in revision and brought to the notice of this Court the fact that on the appointed day under the Act, i.e. 21. 1971. The respondent herein, viz., Sarojammal and her husband Kesava Reddiar constituted a family with one minor son, Gopalakrishnan and three unmarried daughters. Notice under Sec.8(1) of the Act was issued to Kesava Reddiar, who furnished the returns in Form II. On a scrutiny, it was found that he had not included the lands, which stood in the name of his minor son Gopalakrishnan and his wife, Sarojammal. The Authorised Officer then prepared a draft statement under Sec.9(1) and published the same in the Official Gazette as contemplated under Sec.9(5) of the Act and issued notice to Kesava Reddiar, who was in management of the family properties. Kesava Reddiar filed his objections to the draft statement and also filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Act, in W.P.No.6735 of 1975. That writ petition was dismissed on 27. 1976. Kesava Reddiar then filed a revised return and his wife Sarojammal also filed returns for her minor son, Gopalakrishnan. The Authorised Officer considered their objections and after providing adequate opportunity to present their objections, passed orders for the preparation of the draft statement under Sec.8(2)(b) of the Act. The draft statement was published in the Gazette Extraordinary No.471, dated 210. 1976 specifying the total extent of the lands held by the family of Kesava Reddiar as 12.78 standard hectares, the ceiling area being 7,200 standard hectares for a family of the type of the lands involved. The family possessed 5.580 standard hectares in excess of the ceiling area. Thus, the surplus was declared in the year 1976. Kesava Reddiar and Sarojammal filed two separate appeals before the Land Tribunal, Pondicherry, under Sec.46 of the Act. Their appeals were dismissed on merit. Both of them filed C.R.P.Nos.2399 and 2400 of 1977 in this Court; Those civil revision petitions were dismissed on 12. 1979. The Authorised Officer then prepared and published the final statement in the Extraordinary Gazette No.38, dated 4. 1982. Their appeals were dismissed on merit. Both of them filed C.R.P.Nos.2399 and 2400 of 1977 in this Court; Those civil revision petitions were dismissed on 12. 1979. The Authorised Officer then prepared and published the final statement in the Extraordinary Gazette No.38, dated 4. 1982. Specifying therein the entire lands held by the family of Kesava Reddiar as on the relevant date and the lands allowed to be retained by the family within the ceiling area as well as the surplus lands held by the family for the purposes of the Act. At this stage, Gopalakrishnan, who became a major, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8826 of 1983 to quash the final statement dated 4. 1982 and obtained stay of all further proceedings. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 9. 1991. The Authorised Officer then sent proposals to the Government for the issuance of notification under Secl7(1) of the Act. At this stage, Sarojammal (respondent herein) filed this proceeding, claiming that the property is her sridhana property and she came to know of the land ceiling proceedings only on 30.3.1992. .4. The facts thus stated show how the Reddiar family has managed to hold, in excess of the ceiling area an extent of 5.580 standard hectares of land by recourse to proceedings in this Court by way of writ petitions and appeals under Sec.46 of the Act, first before the final statement publication and revisions in this Court by them and when the final statement came to be published specifying the entire lands held by the family, the son, who was a minor when the proceedings stated and thereafter became major filed a writ petition in this Court and after his losing finally on 9. 1991 and when Sec.l7(1) notification was to be published, Sarojammal has filed the instant application. 5. Why and how a person, as the respondent herein, has succeeded in convincing the court of the Subordinate Judge that the publication of the final statement as respects her lands is vitiated, can be appreciated only by looking into some of the provisions of the Act and the relevancy of her plea, tested by taking notice of the conduct of the members of her family in the light of such provisions of law. 6. 6. The Act has intended to provide for the fixation of ceiling on agricultural land holdings and for certain other matters connected therewith in the region of Pondicherry and Karaikal and has been made effective from the appointed day, i.e. 24th day of January, 1971. The extent of land, which a person is entitled to hold is prescribed under Scc.4 and defined in Sec.2(b) of the Act, to mean the ceiling area. Sec.4 reads as follows: "4 (1)(a) subject to the provisions of Chapter VI, the ceiling area in the case of every person and in the case of every family consisting of not more than five members, shall be 6 standard hectares, .(b) The ceiling area in the case of every family consisting of more than five members shall, subject to the provisions of Chapter VI, be 6 standard hectares together with an additional 1.2 standard hectares for every member of the family in excess of five. Provided that the total extent of land by any family shall in no case exceed twice the ceiling area referred to in clause (a). .(2) For the purposes of this section, all the lands held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family, shall be deemed to be held by the family. 3(a) In calculating the extent of land held by a member of a family or by an individual person, the share of the member of the family or of the individual person in the land held by an undivided Hindu family shall be taken into account. .(b) In calculating the extent of land held by a family or by an individual person, the share of the family or of the individual person, in the land held by a firm, society or association of individuals (whether incorporated or not) or by a company (other than a nonagricultural company) shall be taken into account. .(b) In calculating the extent of land held by a family or by an individual person, the share of the family or of the individual person, in the land held by a firm, society or association of individuals (whether incorporated or not) or by a company (other than a nonagricultural company) shall be taken into account. Explanation for the purposes of this section: (a) The share of a member of a family or of an individual person in the land held by an undivided Hindu family: and .(b) the share of a family or of an individual person in the land held by a firm, society or association of individuals (whether incorporated or not), or by a company (other than a non-agricultural company shall be deemed to be the extent of land- .(i) which, in case such share is held on the appointed day would have been allotted to such member, person or family had such land been partitioned or divided in proportion to the share held by such member, person or family, as the case may be, on such day, or; (ii) which in case such share is acquired in any manner whatsoever after the appointed day would be allotted to such member, person or family if a partition or division in proportion to the share held by such member, person or family, were to take place on the date of the preparation of the draft statement under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.9. 4. In calculating the extent of land held by any person, any land which was transferred by sale, gift or otherwise or partitioned by that person after the appointed day but before the commencement of the Act, shall be taken into account as if such land had not been transferred or partitioned as the case may be. (5)(a) The land held by the public trust referred to in the proviso to clause (30) of Sec.2 shall be deemed to be held by the founder of the trust or his heirs or the family of the founder or of his heirs. .(b) In calculating the extent of land held by such founder or his heirs or such family, the extent of the land held by the public trust shall be taken into account. .(b) In calculating the extent of land held by such founder or his heirs or such family, the extent of the land held by the public trust shall be taken into account. .(6) In calculating the extent of land held by any person, the extent of land which may revert to such person immediately after the death of any limited owner, shall, during the lifetime of the limited owner, be excluded. 5(1) Where under the terms of a public trust any interest either in the land in respect of which the public trust is created or in the income from such land is reserved in favour of the founder of such public trust, the authorised officer shall declare the extent of land which bears to the total extent of land held on the appointed day in respect of which the public trust in created, the same proportion as such interest bears to the total interest in such land or the income therefrom. .(2) The extent of the land so declared under Sub-sec.(l)- .(a) Shall, with effect from the date of such declaration, be deemed to be held by the founder, .(b) shall be taken into account in calculating the extent of land held by him; and .(c) shall cease to be the public trust property from the date of such declaration; but shall be subject to any other liability that may be subsisting on such land; provided that the extent of such liability shall bear the same proportion to the entire liability as the extent so declared bears to the total extent. 6. On and from the appointed day, no person shall, except as otherwise provided in this Act, but, subject to the provisions of Chapter VI be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area; Provided that in calculating the total extent of land held by any person, the authorised officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing permit any person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area, if the extent of excess of land does not exceed O.2 hectare in the case of wet land and O.4 hectare in the case of dry land." 7. The ceiling area of every person and in the case of every family, for the purposes of the Act is understood to suggest that in the case of a family, in relation to a person, to include the person, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her minor sons and unmarried daughters and otherwise shall also apply to any Company or Society or Association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or any private trust or public trust. Since for the purposes of ceiling area of land held by the individuals or members of a family or jointly by some or all the members of such family, is deemed to be held by the family, there is no mistake in treating for the purposes of the ceiling area the land that stood in the name of the respondent as well as the land that stood in the name of her minor son, as the land held by the family together with the land that stood in the name of her husband, who as the head of the family represented the family. Sec.7 of the Act has a description that every person, who, on the appointed day held lands in excess of the ceiling area, shall in respect of all lands held by such person on such day, furnish to the Authorised Officer within those jurisdiction the holding of such person or the major part thereof is situate, a return containing the particulars mentioned therein within 30 days from such date, as may be specified in the notification issued by the Government in this behalf. Respondent’s husband, it is not in dispute, responded to such a notification and submitted a return in the year 1971; but did not include in the return the lands that stood in the name of the respondent or in the name of their minor son, Gopalakrishnan. The Authorised Officer noticed this omission and in the draft statement that he published under Sec.9(5) of the Act, included such lands also in the return of the respondent’s husband who had omitted to include. Respondent’s husband filed objections to the draft statements and also filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. The Authorised Officer noticed this omission and in the draft statement that he published under Sec.9(5) of the Act, included such lands also in the return of the respondent’s husband who had omitted to include. Respondent’s husband filed objections to the draft statements and also filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. In the Explanation to Sec.22(l) however, it is indicated that where the land is held by an individual the return would be furnished by him or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf. Under the ordinary and the general law of the land, "owner" means any person holding land severally or jointly or in common or in any way subject to the payment of revenue direct to the Government and includes full owner or limited owner. This concept is not excluded and the definition “owner” in the act states exactly this and to hold land for this Act, is defined with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions to own land as owner or to possess or enjoy land as possessory mortgagee or as tenant or as intermediary or in one or more of those capacities. The expressions “intermediary” and “possessory mortgagee” also are defined in the Act. “Land owner” also has been given a specific definition to mean the owner of the land, let for cultivation by a tenant and to include heirs, assigns, legal representatives for such owner or persons deriving rights through him. The real action, however, the Act has contemplated, begins under Sec.8. The Authorised Officer is required to hold some sort of an enquiry, to give notice to the persons concerned, to furnish full and additional particulars, etc. and after obtaining the information, call upon the person concerned to make his representation and adduce evidence, if any, in respect of such information, which he had not furnished to the Authorised Officer, but ought to have been furnished in the return. and after obtaining the information, call upon the person concerned to make his representation and adduce evidence, if any, in respect of such information, which he had not furnished to the Authorised Officer, but ought to have been furnished in the return. After such formalities and enquiry on the basis of the return furnished under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.7 and on the basis of the representation and evidence, under the proviso to Explanation (3) to Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.7 of the Act, or on the basis of the return furnished under Sec.8(1) of the Act and the additional particulars, if any, furnished under that subsection, or, on the basis of the information obtained by the Authorised Officer under clause (1) of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec.8 and the orders passed on the re-presentation and the evidence, if any, under clause (b)of Sub-sec.(2)of the Sec.8 as the case may be, the Authorised Officer is required to prepare a draft statement in respect of each person holding or deemed to have held lands in excess of the ceiling area and to publish the same under Sec.9(5) of the Act. It is interesting to note that Explanation (3) in Sec.7 of the Act has clarified that where land is held by a family the return shall be furnished by the person in management of such family or of the properties of such family and the return so furnished shall be binding on the other members of the family. There has been, however, a proviso to this, before 1977 amendment, which, however, required that the Authorised Officer would give to the other members of the family a reasonable opportunity to make their representation and of adducing evidence, if any, in respect of such return and would consider such representations and evidence, before the preparation of the draft statement under Sec.9(1) of the Act, but the same has been omitted by the amendment. Sub-sec.(5) of Sec.9 requires, however, that the Authorised Officer shall give notice of the draft statement and serve the same on the persons concerned, tenants, creditors and all other persons, who in the opinion of the Authorised Officer, are interested in the land to which such draft statement relates. Sub-sec.(5) of Sec.9 requires, however, that the Authorised Officer shall give notice of the draft statement and serve the same on the persons concerned, tenants, creditors and all other persons, who in the opinion of the Authorised Officer, are interested in the land to which such draft statement relates. The purpose of this notice is to provide opportunity to any person who filed objection, if any, to the draft statement and the Authorised Officer is enjoined by Sub-sec.(6) of Sec.9 to receive the objections, if filed within 30 days from the date of the publication of the draft statement and give to the objector a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after adducing evidence, if any. 8. There is no dispute before me that the Authorised Officer issued notice under Sec.9 (5) of the Act and the same was served upon the husband of the respondent. The court below has held, however that the Authorised Officer was required to serve such a notice upon the respondent also and since there has been no notice served upon her, it is indeed an error going to the root of the publication of the final statement. Learned counsel for the respondent has canvassed this vehemence before me and submitted that the court should take notice of such infirmity and interfere with the acquisition of the alleged surplus land, unless an opportunity is not afforded to the owner of the land to object to the acquisition/ declaration of the surplus. He has thus supported and contended that the impugned judgment is correct and just. He has placed reliance upon a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt.Manoranjitham v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Nagapattinam, (1984)2 M.L.J. 476. In that judgment, there was non-service of notice of the draft statement as well as the final statement upon the owner of the property, in relation to Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, Act 58of 1961. The Madras Act has a provision in Sec.10 thereof for the preparation and publication of draft statement as regards lands in excess of the ceiling area, as we have in Sec.9 of the Act (viz. Pondicherry Act). The Madras Act has a provision in Sec.10 thereof for the preparation and publication of draft statement as regards lands in excess of the ceiling area, as we have in Sec.9 of the Act (viz. Pondicherry Act). Sec. 10(5) of the Tamil Nadu Act provides as follows: "10(5) The draft statement shall be published and a copy thereof shall be served on the person concerned, the tenant, creditors, and all other persons, who in the opinion of the Authorised Officer are interested in the land to which such draft statement relates, together with a notice stating that any objection to the draft statement shall be preferred within 30 days from the date of service of such notice. The Authorised Officer shall duly consider any objection received within the time specified in the said notice from the person on whom a copy of the draft statement has been served or any objection received within 30 days from the date of the publication of the draft statement from any other person. The Authorised Officer shall after giving the objector a reasonable opportunity of being heard and of adducing evidence, if any, and subject to such rules as maybe made, pass such orders as he deems fit". A Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Manoranjitham, (1984)2 M.L.J. 476, has interpreted this provision and said: "It is clear from the section that the draft statement shall be published and a copy thereof shall be served on the persons concerned, the tenants, creditors and all other persons who in the opinion of the authorised officer are interested in the land to which such draft statement relates. As far as the present case is concerned, the appellant has a settlement deed in his favour in respect of the lands in dispute. Both as per Sec.10(5) and Sec.12 of the Act, the Authorities concerned ought to have served a copy of the draft statement and also the final statement upon the appellant herein. No such thing has been done. It is admitted by the Government Pleader that no such notice was served upon the appellant. Hence, the Authorities treated this land as that of her husband Arunachalam Pillai and hence the notices contemplated under Secs. 10(5) and 12 of the Act were not served upon the appellant herein. No such thing has been done. It is admitted by the Government Pleader that no such notice was served upon the appellant. Hence, the Authorities treated this land as that of her husband Arunachalam Pillai and hence the notices contemplated under Secs. 10(5) and 12 of the Act were not served upon the appellant herein. Thus, it is clear from the facts of the case that there is clear violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Secs.l0 (5) and 12 of the Act and hence, the final statement issued under Sec.18 has to be quashed." In this case, the property, which was declared as surplus, belonged to the appellant absolutely as per the settlement deed in her favour effected by her husband, she was the exclusive owner of the said property. There was an error, it seems, in treating her property as the property belonging to her husband and in that view one may suggest that the case in hand is distinguishable from the case of Smt.Manoranjitham, (1984)2 M.L.J. 476. I am, however, not inclined to accept and in this respect, I am not in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner before me that the Authorised Officer shall give notice to all members of the family, that is to say, other than the head of the family. In such cases only where he has reason to think that the head of the family and the other members of the family, have conflicting interest that he may give notice to other persons. Since it is not known, in which families, such conflict will be found and how the Authorised Officer shall know that in this family, the wife or the husband, as the case may be, will have conflict of interest, it will not be wrong if all other members of the family are given the notice of the draft statement and/or the final statement as the case may be. It is just and equitable to hold that in all cases, any owner, whose property is going to be subjected to the ceiling law, whether it is required to be clubbed with the property of the family or not, the notice should be served. Noncompliance with such a procedure may, in a given case vitiate the acquisition. It is just and equitable to hold that in all cases, any owner, whose property is going to be subjected to the ceiling law, whether it is required to be clubbed with the property of the family or not, the notice should be served. Noncompliance with such a procedure may, in a given case vitiate the acquisition. There may, however, be cases, where there may not be any substance in the objections, but on a mere technicality, the entire proceeding is sought to be reversed. In the case of Vengadachalam Pillai v. Union Territory of Pondi-cherry, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 571, the Supreme Court has examined the provisions of the Act and while dealing with the case of two minor sons of the appellant therein, pointed out that it will be a violation, if on account of any alleged partition before the appointed day, minor sons would be taken as the owners of the property and what stood in their name, will not be included in the land belonging to the family. The Supreme Court has observed thus: "The fallacy underlying the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant is that they proceed on the erroneous assumption that the "family" referred to in the Act must conform to the concept of the joint family as known to Hindu Law. The provisions of the Act arc applicable to all holders of land in the Union Territory of Pondicherry irrespective of religion, community, etc. The lands may be held by Hindus, Muslims, or by persons belonging to other religious faiths. All of them are equally governed by the provisions of the Act. The concept of a joint family is totally foreign to the personal laws of some of the communities. It is, therefore, manifestly wrong to approach the interpretation of the sections of the Act with the pre-conceived notion that in using the expression "family" the legislature had intended to connote an undivided family, as known to the Hindu Law, and that after a partition had taken place, in a Hindu Joint family, there cannot be a "family" consisting of the father and his divided minor sons,for the purpose of fixation of ceiling under the Act. The fact that the definition of "family" contained in Sec.2(10) does not treat the major sons of a person as members of the family, is a clear pointer that an undivided Hindu family was not in the contemplation of the legislature was when it enacted the said definition section. Similarly, the provision contained in Sub-sec.3(a) of Sec.4 that in calculating the extent of land held by a member of a family or by an individual person the share of the member of the family or of the individual person in the land held by an undivided Hindu family can be taken into account furnishes a conclusive indication that the "family" mentioned in the Act is wholly distinct and different from an "undivided Hindu family’. The circumstances that partition had taken place disrupting the joint family consisting of the appellant and his minor sons, is, therefore, of no relevance in determining the total extent of the holding of the appellant in according with the provisions of Sec.2(10) read with Sec.4 of the Act. That is because, the act has created a special statutory unit consisting of the person satisfying the description contained in clause 10 of Sec.2 as constituting a "family" for the purpose of fixation of ceiling. The stress is only on the existence of the relationship mentioned in the section and unity of title or jointness of holdings in relation to properties are not essential element for attracting the applicability of the definition. Under the definition contained in Sec.2(10) a person, the wife or husband of such person and his or her minor sons, and unmarried daughters, together constitute a "family". Sec.4(2) expressly provides that for the purpose of fixation of ceiling on the lands held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family, shall be deemed to be held by the "family". The result is that the separate properties of the members constituting the statutory family are all to be treated as forming part of the holding of the "family" for the purpose of determination of the ceiling area. The result is that the separate properties of the members constituting the statutory family are all to be treated as forming part of the holding of the "family" for the purpose of determination of the ceiling area. Such being the position, emerging from the provisions of Sec.2(10) and Sec.4(1)(2), the properties held by the minor sons of the appellant individually as well as the lands separately owned by Smt.Senbagavalli, wife of the appellant by virtue of the purchase effected by her with her sridhanam amounts were all liable to be taken into account while computing the total extent of holding of the family of the appellant. Counsel for the appellant sought to rely on the provisions contained in Explanation IV to Sec.7 for contending that there was no justification for including the separate properties of Smt.Senbagavalli in the holding of the appellant "family". We see nothing in the said provision, which lend support to the contention of the appellant. The Explanation itself clearly proceeds on the footing that for purposes of computing the ceiling and determining the area of surplus land to be surrendered, the lands, held separately by the husband and wife are to be pooled together. All that the explanation laid down is that when the aggregate of such lands exceeds the ceiling area, the extent of the land to the declared surplus by each of the spouses shall be fixed in proportion to the respective areas of land separately held by each of them. In other words, the liability to surrender excess land is to be fixed in proportion to the extent of land held separately by the two spouses. Counsel for the appellant also relied on the provision contained in Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.4 of the Act as furnishing an indication that transactions of partition that have taken place before the "appointed day" are not to be ignored and that only post appointed day partitions are to be treated as ineffective. We find no force in this argument. Counsel for the appellant also relied on the provision contained in Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.4 of the Act as furnishing an indication that transactions of partition that have taken place before the "appointed day" are not to be ignored and that only post appointed day partitions are to be treated as ineffective. We find no force in this argument. The purpose of Sec.4(4) is to peg down the process of determination of ceiling area to the state of things that obtained on the "appointed day" and it is in that context, and for the said purpose that the sub-section provides that in calculating the extent of land held by any person, any land which was transferred by sale, gift or otherwise, or partitioned by that person after the "appointed day" but before the commencement of the Act, shall be taken into account as if such land had not been transferred or partitioned. The conclusion that emerges from the foregoing discussion is, that the High Court was perfectly right in holding that the lands standing in the name of the wife and the two minor sonsoftheappellant,as their separate proper-ties, were also liable to be included in the holding of the appellant for the purpose of fixation of ceiling under Sec.4 of the Act. " There is no direct discussion in the judgment of the Supreme Court where a husband or a wife, as the case may be, who has some properties in his or her name, and who are constituting a "family" for the purpose of this Act, notice of the draft statement should be given or not. It is obvious, however, that in the process of clubbing their properties, it is made clear that the other person, whose property has not been included in the return submitted by the head of the family, who has responded to the notice, and filed the return, as required under Sec.7 of the Act, their properties have been included as the lands belonging to the family. If a person has known that his or her land is also included in the return and/or in the draft statement, after such enquiry as Sec.8 of the Act has contemplated, and has not chosen to file his or her objection, it will be a hyper-technical argument that notice of the draft statement has not been given and therefore, the entire proceeding is vitiated. I have found on the facts in the instant case that the respondent knew about the proceeding, that the respondent did file some sort of objection in the proceeding, that the respondent did move in revision against some order passed by the Authorised Officer, in her name, besides similar proceedings taken up to this Court by her husband and by her son, who also questioned the acquisition, no sooner than he became an adult. It is not a case, in my opinion in which a court of law should show any indulgence in favour of a person like the respondent, who had, it appears, known about everything, but has chosen to undo a valid action taken under the law, on a hyper-technical ground of no notice being given to her. There is no material before me to show that the proportion in leaving the land as within the ceiling area in the hands of the family, has not been maintained in the final acquisition. I am however inclined to observe in the instant case that if the respondent or her husband so finds that adequate percentage has not been maintained in respect of the lands held by them individually, they may apply to the Authorised Officer, who shall, before making the final order of acquisition , adjust the surplus accordingly. It is however made clear that it is only as an act of grace to the respondent and not as a matter of right. I am satisfied that the impugned judgment is not valid and proper. The court below has committed an irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by not taking into account the conduct of the respondent and the injury to the public interest as a result of any interference in the acquisition, after such a long lapse of time. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the judgment of the court below is set aside and the petitioner may proceed to complete the acquisition in accordance with law, without any let or hindrance. There will be no order as to costs.