Judgment :- Aggrieved against the order dated 12. 2003 of the Land Commissioner in R.P.No.14/2001, Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 2. Background facts which led to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:- As on 12. 1970, on the date of commencement of Act, Kanagasabapathy Mudaliar owned 44.70 ordinary acres equivalent to 16.30 standard acres under Sec.I and 0.69 ordinary acres equivalent to 0.32 standard acres under Sec.IV. After allowing permissible ceiling area of 15 standard acres an extent of 1.28 ordinary acres equivalent to 0.73 standard acres was declared as surplus as per final settlement under Sec.XII of the Act published in the Government Gazette on 31. 1979. 3. Shanmuga Mudaliar, brother of the land owner filed Revision Petition before Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal (for short Special Appellate Tribunal) against Sec.18(1) Notification contending that the land owner and the Petitioner have equal share as per the partition effected in Document No.2457/1958 dated 20.11.1958. Special Appellate Tribunal in its order S.R.P.No.81/1993 dated 112. 1993 has remitted the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner to pass suitable orders in the light of the partition deed said to have been effected between the Petitioner Shanmuga Mudaliar and the land owner. Special Appellate Tribunal has set aside the Revision under Sec.18 (1) of the Act published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 26. 1979 and directed to publish revised 18(1) Notification to implement fresh orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 4. Referring to the partition deed and stating that the landowner is having a share of 0.71 ½ acres of land in S.No.49/1, 0.14 ½ acres was deducted from the holdings of the landowner and surplus was ordered to be deducted by the Assistant Commissioner in the order dated 11.07.2001. 5. Order of Assistant Commissioner was challenged before the Land Commissioner in D1/R.P.14/2001. Observing that the grievance of the Petitioner is not a valid grievance, the Land Commissioner dismissed the revision petition. 6. Challenging the impugned order the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Assistant Commissioner did not consider the partition deed under the recitals there on where the Petitioner father was given life estate. The learned counsel further submitted that when the Special Tribunal for Land Reforms has set aside the order the Assistant Commissioner ought to have considered the matter afresh. The learned counsel further submitted that when the Special Tribunal for Land Reforms has set aside the order the Assistant Commissioner ought to have considered the matter afresh. The impugned order is mainly challenged on the ground that partition deed was not taken into consideration and that extent given to the father as life estate was not kept in view. 7. Learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. N. Senthilkumar, would submit that matter has been remitted for the limited purpose of considering the matter in the light of entitlement of Petitioners brother 0.71 ½ acres which was wrongly stated as 0.86 acres and while so it is not open to the Petitioner to raise their grounds before the Assistant Commissioner. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that the same issue was raised by the Petitioners father in W.P.No.3017/1980 which came to be dismissed on 13.08.1986 and the same issues cannot be reopened. 8. By perusal of records it comes to be known the special Tribunal has remitted the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner to pass suitable orders in the light of the partition deed said to have been effected between the Petitioner and his brother Kanagasabapathy Mudaliar (present writ petitioner). In S.No.49/1 out of the total extent of 1.43 acres each one of them was allotted 71 ½ cents. 9. Before the Assistant Commissioner Petitioners brother Shanmuga Mudaliar had given statement to the effect that he and his brother are each entitled to 0.71 ½ acres in S.No.49/1. The statement of Shanmuga Mudaliar given before the Assistant Commissioner reads as under: 10. The writ petitioner had also appeared before the Assistant Commissioner and had given his statement requesting for deletion of Survey numbers. 51/2 - 0.49 ½; 46/7 -0.27 ½; 44/1 - 2.87; 98/7 - 0.01; 146/6 - 0.02; 164/2b - 0.29;. The writ petitioner has also sought for deletion on 144/6A, 144/6 on the ground that they are the house sites and S.No.53/4 is a path way. 11. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. P. Jagadeesan, contended that the Petitioners father was allotted certain properties as life estate and those properties was also erroneously included in the holdings and the Assistant Commissioner had not kept in view the recitals in the partition deed. 11. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. P. Jagadeesan, contended that the Petitioners father was allotted certain properties as life estate and those properties was also erroneously included in the holdings and the Assistant Commissioner had not kept in view the recitals in the partition deed. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Government pleader the special Tamilnadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal has remitted the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner only for the limited purpose to determine the correct share in R.S.No.49/1 and declare the surplus. The Assistant Commissioner has passed the order after deleting the extent of 0.14 ½ acres from the Petitioners holdings. While so it is not open to the Petitioner to contend that the Assistant Commissioner ought to have considered the other points raised by the Petitioner and his brother. 12. As seen from the counter the lands in S.Nos.51/2,46/7 and 44/1 have been transferred in the names of the Petitioner and his brother. The question of enjoyment by their father arises only if the sons, i.e, the Petitioner and his brother failed to maintain their father. The Petitioners father – Ayyadurai has already raised the same issue in W.P.No.3017/1980 and the same was already dismissed and the same points cannot be reopened again. 13. The order of the Assistant Commissioner deducting 0.14 ½ in S.No.49/1 and declaring the surplus as 0.65 acre is well in accordance with materials on record and the impugned order does not call for any interference. 14. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.