Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2666 (MAD)

Sarojini Kittu v. Land Commissioner

2011-06-07

K.CHANDRU

body2011
JUDGMENT :- 1. The first petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same person. The second petitioner in W.P.No.8598 of 2004 is the daughter of the first petitioner. The petitioners were the wife and daughter of one Kittu. In the two writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged an order dated 30.08.1999 passed by the Land Commissioner in respect of the proceedings Nos.23/98 and 39/98. The revision petitions filed before the Tribunal were taken on file as SRP.Nos.15 and 3 of 2001 respectively. 2. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matters stood transferred to this Court and were renumbered as CRP Nos.1907 and 1904 of 2003 respectively. However, a learned Judge of this court opined that no Civil Revision Petition will lie as the officers whose orders under challenge were not a Court but only statutory authorities. Therefore, the CRPs were converted into writ petitions and notice was ordered. 3. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the official respondents, a counter affidavit dated Nil was filed by the second respondent. The private respondents 3 to 5 have also filed a counter affidavit dated 07.08.2001. 4. The case of the petitioners was that the first petitioner’s husband who was the land owner died on 16.07.1979. The details of the legal representatives were given to the Authorised Officer by one Babu. He had also filed Vakalat. A Draft Statement under Section 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (for short Land Reforms Act) was published on 06.02.1985. Form No.7 was given only to the son of the late Kittu on 14.02.1985. Exemption was requested in respect of lands in Ikkaraipolurampatti and also the lands for which acquisition have been made for Harijan Welfare Scheme and Water Supply Scheme. A settlement dated 30.01.1970 given by Kittu to his daughter was also referred to. The legal heirs were put on notice on 30.03.1985. Only, the son Babu sent objections. An Officer also inspected the land for the purpose of considering exemption. The Authorised Officer recommended the exemption under Section 3(22). In respect of Mangothoppu and one River pit, exemptions were granted. 5. In the meanwhile, the Commissioner passed an order dated 11.07.1986 stating that exemption and exclusion should have been confirmed at the stage of proceedings under Section 10(5). An Officer also inspected the land for the purpose of considering exemption. The Authorised Officer recommended the exemption under Section 3(22). In respect of Mangothoppu and one River pit, exemptions were granted. 5. In the meanwhile, the Commissioner passed an order dated 11.07.1986 stating that exemption and exclusion should have been confirmed at the stage of proceedings under Section 10(5). Accordingly, on 12.08.1987, the Authorised Officer passed the revised order granting exemption for Cart Track. Settlement lands were included and thereafter surplus lands were declared. The Director of Land Reforms also directed some corrections. In the meanwhile, since no notice was sent by the Authorised Officer to all the legal representatives, an appeal was filed. 6. The Land Tribunal by an order dated 30.11.1988 remanded the case for further enquiry. On remand, orders were passed on 12.11.1990 and copies were served on V.K.Babu. Once again in the LTCMA 6 of 1991 filed by the petitioners, orders were passed setting aside the order dated 12.11.1990. Thereafter, notice was given to the land owners. After allegedly serving notice, an inspection was done. In the meanwhile, the said Babu died. Nevertheless on 12.09.1995, an order under Section 10(5) was passed and the order was also served on the two petitioners. A final statement was made on 21.05.1997. On 31.12.1997, an order under Section 18(1) was passed and the first petitioner refused to receive the same. Hence, the service was done by Affixture. Thereafter, the Land Commissioner keeping the final statement in abeyance directed the Assistant Commissioner to conduct enquiry and notices were also issued to the interested persons. The contesting private respondents have appeared and gave statements. On 21.05.1997, final statement was passed and it was also published subsequently. 7. The stand of the petitioners was that the order passed by the Commissioner on 30.08.1999 was illegal. As the petitioners have not been put on notice, their valuable right to represent had been denied. No notice was issued to the legal heirs of V.K.Babu and to the revision petitioners. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, with reference to the lack of notice, in paragraphs 9 and 12 of the counter affidavit, it was averred as follows:- "9. No notice was issued to the legal heirs of V.K.Babu and to the revision petitioners. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, with reference to the lack of notice, in paragraphs 9 and 12 of the counter affidavit, it was averred as follows:- "9. Therefore, again a date was fixed on 15.07.1994 and to that effect, a notice was sent to the legal heirs through R.P.A.D on 30.06.94 and the same was acknowledged by the Revision Petitioners (Sarojini Kittu). But, neither the legal heirs on whom the notice was served nor anyone else on their behalf turned up for inspection and enquiry or sent any written representation. 12. The order under Section 10(5) of the Act was passed on 10.2.88 and it was sent by R.P.A.D to Thiru V.K.Babu son of the deceased landowner and it was acknowledged by him on 16.2.88. On receipt of the order passed under Section 10(5) of the Act, dated 10.2.88, the legal heirs of the landowner were able to file appeals in LTCMA.6/88 and 6/91 before the Land Tribunal." 9. In paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, it was stated that at every stage, notice was sent to all the respective parties. Paragraph 14 reads as follows: "Tmt.Sarojini Kittu and V.P.Palanisamy @ Babu were shown as family members of the deceased landowner and notices were sent to them at every stage of the Land Ceiling Proceedings. After the demise of V.K.Palanisamy @ Babu who died in the year 1995, his wife Banumathi was put on notice for enquiry under Section 22 of the Act and she attended the enquiry and gave statement on 2.6.97 before the second respondent. But the petitioners in this revision petition Sarojini Kittu and Chandralekha received notices but not turned up for the above enquiry. Therefore, at every stage of the Land Ceiling Proceedings, notices were served on the legal heirs of the deceased landowner and as well as the legal heirs of the deceased landowner’s son V.K.Palanisamy @ Babu, as contemplated under rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Rules, 1962. The fact that the legal heirs of the deceased landowner filed appeals in LTCMA 6/88 and 6/91 before the Land Tribunal stands prove that they were in receipt of the alleged order. The fact that the legal heirs of the deceased landowner filed appeals in LTCMA 6/88 and 6/91 before the Land Tribunal stands prove that they were in receipt of the alleged order. While determining the holdings of V.C.Palanisamy Gounder under the Principal Act 58/61, the lands that belonged to V.C.Palanisamy Gounder and his three sons were calculated and determined as per the entitlement and then only the land holdings of V.C.P.Kittu as on 15.2.70 were determined and further action was taken. Before publishing the final statement under section 12 of the Act on 21.5.97 all the lands that belonged to V.C.P.Kittu Gounder were inspected by the Deputy Tahsildar (L.Ref) Coimbatore on 26.10.196 and 29.10.96 and then only the final statement was published." 10. With reference to the land of V.K.Palanisamy @ V.K.Babu not being considered, in paragraph 15, it was stated as follows:- "15. An extent of 28.00 acres allotted to Thiru V.K.Palanisamy @ V.K.Babu the son of the landowner as per the registered partition deed dated 4.11.57 has not been included in the holdings of his father, but it was dealt within in a separate file. However, the lands allotted to Mrs.Sarojini Kittu comes under Section VI (Stridhana property) of the Land Reforms Act and hence it was kept under section VI while determining the holdings of V.C.P.Kittu. Further, the partition made in document dated 3.12.59 was also verified and the land holdings of V.C.P.Kittu and his brothers were determined as on 6.4.60 in MRI/66K/ORT (58-61) by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Thanjavur and based on which the land holdings of V.C.P.Kittu was determined as on 15.2.70. With reference to the transaction that took place after 15.2.70, namely the date on which T.N.Act.17/70 came into force will have no bearing in determination of the total holdings." 11. In the counter affidavit filed by the private respondents, it was contended that they were purchasers of the land from the husband of the first petitioner and the purchase was bonafide. Therefore, the land measuring an extent of 82 cents must be deleted from the notification. 12. In the counter affidavit filed by the private respondents, it was contended that they were purchasers of the land from the husband of the first petitioner and the purchase was bonafide. Therefore, the land measuring an extent of 82 cents must be deleted from the notification. 12. Mr.C.R.Prasannan, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Tirumathi Manoranjitham v. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) and another reported in 1984 MLJ 474 for contending that if there is failure to serve notice, then the final statement should be quashed on grounds of mandatory provisions of the Act. 13. The learned counsel further referred to the subsequent judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Assistant Secretary, Board of Revenue (L.Refs) v. C.Chandra Mohan and others reported in 1986 MLJ 382 regarding mode of service to be effected on the aggrieved person. In the present case, since that mode was not adopted, the question of serving by Affixture will not arise. 14. In the present case, the respondents in the counter affidavit had clearly set out the nature of notices served on the petitioners and there is no denial by the petitioners by way of any reply. Therefore, the order does not fail on account of any failure on the part of the official respondents. With reference to the subsequent transaction after the crucial date, the Supreme Court has held that such transactions are void and will not bind on the authorities. 15. A reference may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Authorised Officer and another v. S.Naganatha Ayyar and others reported in (1979) 3 SCC 466 . In paragraphs 16 and 17, the Supreme Court held as follows: "16. In the interpretation of Section 22 we too are Portia men. For this reason we reverse the view of the High Court that Section 22 will not apply to nullify any transaction of transfer or partition unless it is further shown that it is sham, nominal or bogus. Nor do we agree with Shree Ramamurthi that even if a transaction defeats the ceiling provisions, it may still be valid if the transfer is, from an individual point of view bona fide. Nor do we agree with Shree Ramamurthi that even if a transaction defeats the ceiling provisions, it may still be valid if the transfer is, from an individual point of view bona fide. The short reply is that from the community’s angle, especially the landless community’s angle hungering for allotment, the alienation, however necessary for the individual, is not bona fide vis-a-vis the community. 17. Therefore, we allow the appeal in the light of the interpretation we have adopted, restore the Tribunal’s holding and rule that if any transfer defeats the provisions of the Act by reducing the extent of surplus land in excess of the ceiling available from any person such transaction, bona fide or not, is void in the matter of computation of the permissible area and the surplus area. May be, that the transaction may be good for other purposes or may not be. The Authorised Officer is within his power if he ignores it as void for purposes of Section 22 Section 7 and other ceiling-related provisions." 16. In view of the above, there is no case made out. Accordingly, both the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.