Judgment :- (Delivered by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.) 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.07.2005 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 10009 of 1993 filed seeking to quash G.O. Ms. No. 832 Revenue Department dated 31.5.1991 and the consequent notice of the Authorised Officer dated 30.4.1993, the landlady has preferred this Appeal. 2. W.P. No. 5585 has been filed by the petitioners claiming to be the cultivating tenants of the Survey No. in question, seeking to quash G.O. Ms. No. 821 dated 31.5.1991 allotting 8.63 acres in S. No. 1/1A-2 in Moulivakkam, Sriperumpudur, Chengai-MGR District to the fourth respondent and for a further direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to assign the said lands or any other lands that may be taken over as surplus lands to them in accordance with Rules 4 and 5 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules 1965. 3. W.P. No. 4430 has been filed by the landlady seeking to quash the order dated 16.3.1998 passed by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. 4. Pursuant to the Notification dated 12.02.1986 issued under Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act [hereinafter referred to as the Act] declaring 8.63 acres of the appellants land lying at Moulivakkam Village, Sriperumpudur as surplus, the appellant filed a Revision Petition in RP. 94 of 1986 before the Land Commissioner, Madras, who, disposed of the same holding that the appellant was not given opportunity by serving the Notification. 5. From the materials, it is seen that on the directions issued by the Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), after furnishing details to the appellants husband with regard to the surplus land available for acquisition and on consideration of the contentions raised by him during hearing, by order dated 23.4.1990, rejected his claim for further exclusion of lands under Section 3(22) of the Act ultimately holding that the landlady is liable to surrender 8.63 ordinary acres which is equivalent to 4.93 standard acres and such surrender should be in RS. No. 1/1A of Moulivakkam Village which would be declared as an alternative surplus land in lieu of the lands originally sought to be acquired in R.S. Nos. 6/5, 6.2 and 1/1B of Moulivakkam Village pursuant to which, G.O. Ms. No. 821 dated 31.5.1991 impugned in the Writ Petition, came to be issued. 6. No. 1/1A of Moulivakkam Village which would be declared as an alternative surplus land in lieu of the lands originally sought to be acquired in R.S. Nos. 6/5, 6.2 and 1/1B of Moulivakkam Village pursuant to which, G.O. Ms. No. 821 dated 31.5.1991 impugned in the Writ Petition, came to be issued. 6. Learned single Judge, on consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials placed on record, dismissed the Writ Petition holding that impugned G.O. Ms. No. 821 dated 31.5.1991 came to be issued in furtherance of the order of the Assistant Commissioner Land Reforms dated 23.4.1990, as confirmed by the Special Appellate Tribunal in RP. No. 59/91. Feeling aggrieved, the landlady has preferred this Writ Appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the landlady and the learned Government Advocate representing the official respondents as well as the learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Staff Co-operative House Site Distribution Society Limited and perused the records. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to allot the land to the fourth respondent, a Housing Society. With regard to the surplus of land, learned counsel contended that an extent of 2.55 ordinary acres in several Survey Nos. shall be excluded under Section 3(22) of the Act as they are not "lands" used for agricultural purposes. On these grounds, he sought for interference of this Court. 9. Learned Government Advocate representing the official respondents submitted that the order of the Land Assistant Commissioner dated 23.4.1990 has become final and conclusive by virtue of the order of the Special Appellate Tribunal dated 15.7.1992 and, therefore, there is no scope for interference with the impugned G.O. and, therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Before we examine the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act. 11. Under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 [for short, Rules] the assigning authority has to invite applications for the assignment of surplus land for this purpose, he has to publish a notice in Form – D in the manner provided therein. 12. 11. Under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 [for short, Rules] the assigning authority has to invite applications for the assignment of surplus land for this purpose, he has to publish a notice in Form – D in the manner provided therein. 12. Rule 5 of the Rules provides for the criteria for eligibility of assignment of surplus lands and the maximum extent of land to be assigned. Under this Rule, the persons and societies, who are eligible for assignment of surplus land are mentioned in the order of preference given thereto and since it is relevant to decide the issue on hand, we shall extract the same hereunder: Eligibility for assignment of surplus land and the maximum extent to be assigned:-(1) The following persons and societies shall be eligible for assignment of surplus land and shall be entitled to preference, in the order given below:- (i) A person who has been cultivating the land as on the date of the commencement of the Act and who is completely dispossessed of the land which is declared as surplus, as a result of the provisions of the Act: Provided that the person should not have surrendered the lands subsequent to the date of the commencement of the Act. (ii) ......... (iii) A person whose extent of holding is reduced below held by him partly as cultivating tenant and partly as owner or wholly as cultivating tenant by virtue of the provisions of the Act; (iv) A landless agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe who contributed his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of the land; (v) A person who is or who has been a member of the Armed Forces including persons who had served in the Indian National Army or the Ex-Assam Rifles Personnel or any para-military force and members of the Armed Forces, who retired or were disbanded before the 26th January, 1950 and dependants of the persons of the above mentioned categories, killed in action, namely, wife, widowed mother, minor sons and minor daughters. The servicemen not killed in action but disabled and alive, can get surplus lands in their own name. The servicemen not killed in action but disabled and alive, can get surplus lands in their own name. (v-A) A repatriate from Burma or Sri Lanka who is likely to contribute his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of the Land and who has brought to India assets not exceeding Rs. 10,000/- [Rupees ten thousand only] in value. (vi) A landless agricultural labourer other than landless agricultural labourer referred to in clause (iv) who contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of the land; (vii) A cultivating tenant who is holding land which is less than three acres of dry land or one and a half acres of wet land in extent. (viii) Omitted (ix) A co-operative farming society, the members of which are landless agricultural labourers, provided that the extent of land assigned to the society together with the Land, if any, already held by the society does not exceed the ceiling area. (2) The total extent of land that may be assigned to any person referred to in clauses (i) to (vii) of sub-rule (1) together with the extent of other land, if any, already held by such person or if such person is a member of a family, by such family shall not exceed three acres of dry land or one and a half acres of wet land. Provided that in the case of any person falling under clause (i) or (iii) of sub-rule (1), the extent assigned or the total extent his holding and the extent assigned, as the case may be, may exceed the above limit by a margin not exceeding half an acre or dry land or quarter acre of wet land wherever such assignment in excess over the limits unavoidable for practical reasons." 13. Under the scheme of things profounded in the Rules, it is mandatory for the assigning authority to invite applications for assignment of surplus lands after making due publication in the manner provided under Rule 4. After receiving the applications, the assigning authority has to assign the lands to the category of persons mentioned in Rule 5 in the order of preference. 14. After receiving the applications, the assigning authority has to assign the lands to the category of persons mentioned in Rule 5 in the order of preference. 14. In the cases on hand, the lands acquired as ‘surplus’ from the landlady have been ‘reserved’ for the purpose of allotting it to the members of the ‘Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Staff cooperative Housing Society’. In support of their contention that the government is empowered to ‘reserve’ the lands for a purpose, it deems fit and proper as ‘public purpose’, the Department and also the said Society, would rely on Rule 13 and say that there is nothing wrong in such reservation of the land by the Government. 15. Rule 13 of the Rules states that ‘notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government may if it considers that any surplus land is required for any public purpose, reserve such land for such purpose. 16. These Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 94 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. Therefore, we have to fall back on Section 94(1) of the Act, to know the purpose for which the Rules have been framed. Section 94 of the Act deals with ‘disposal of land acquired by the Government’. For better appreciation, we shall now extract hereunder Section 94: “94. Disposal of land acquired by the Government: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) and Section 94-A, the Government may, after taking into consideration the object specified in the preamble, make rules providing for the manner in which any land acquired by the Government under this Act shall be disposed of: (2) (a) In the disposal of the land acquired by the Government under this Act, the Government shall give preference to any person who is completely dispossessed of his holding, or whose extent of holding is reduced below three acres of dry land or one and a half acres of wet land held by him partly as cultivating tenant and partly as owner wholly as cultivating tenant, by virtue of the provisions of this Act.” 17. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, came into existence to fulfil the objects sought to be achieved under Section 94 of the Act. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, came into existence to fulfil the objects sought to be achieved under Section 94 of the Act. Under Section 94, it has been mandated that the Rules to be formulated to achieve the object specified in the preamble of the Act. Therefore, we have to see the objects of the Act. 18. Under sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution in the Directive Principles of State Policy, the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing That the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as beset to subserve the common good and that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. In compliance of these obligations created under the Constitution, the State of Tamil Nadu has enacted the Tamil Nadu Land Reform (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 to provide for the fixation of ceiling on agricultural land holdings and for certain other matters connected therewith with object of reducing disparity in the ownership of agricultural land in the State; to acquire agricultural land in excess of the ceiling area and to distribute such land to the landless and other persons among the rural population so as to best sub-serve the common good, increase agricultural production and promote justice, social and economic. 19. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, particularly Rule 13, cannot be said to deviate from the objects sought to be achieved by the Act, by fixing ceiling on the lands and distribution of the land to the landless poor for increasing the agricultural production and promote justice, social and economic. Though there cannot be any doubt that the State is empowered to reserve the land so acquired, under Rule 13, it cannot be for the purposes, which have not been contemplated under the Act and the Rules. Thus, if we keep these avowed objects sought to be achieved by the Legislature in mind, we cannot justify the action of the official respondents in ‘reserving’ the land for the purpose of allotting to their staff members for construction of house sites. 20. Thus, if we keep these avowed objects sought to be achieved by the Legislature in mind, we cannot justify the action of the official respondents in ‘reserving’ the land for the purpose of allotting to their staff members for construction of house sites. 20. More so, allotting the agricultural land without changing the nature of the land to suit for construction of houses is contrary to the provisions of the Act and this colourable exercise of power on the part of the Government is in utter disregard to the principles underlying the enactment of the Act. 21. Further, pendency of the Review Application before the State Appellate Tribunal is not denied by the respondents and the same has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 4430 of 1998. The action of the Government to take a decision at the request of the staff of the adjudicating authority, in our considered opinion, is not proper. As such, we are of the view that the G.O. is liable to be quashed. The learned Judge ought not to have entertained the Writ Petition mainly on the ground that the review petition is pending. On the other hand, the said petition, which has been transferred to this Court re-numbered as Writ Petition, should have been tagged along with the Writ Petition before the learned Judge. 22. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned single Judge needs to be interfered with. Accordingly, the impugned G.O. as well as the order of the learned single Judge are set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 23. In view of the judgment passed in the above Writ Appeal, no further orders are necessary in W.P. No. 4430 of 1998 to the extent of assailing the correctness of the G.O. and accordingly, the same is closed. 24. With regard to the consequential relief sought for by the petitioner in W.P. No. 5585 of 1996, it is for the Government to consider the same and pass orders as per the provisions of the Act and keeping in view the observations made by us supra. 24. With regard to the consequential relief sought for by the petitioner in W.P. No. 5585 of 1996, it is for the Government to consider the same and pass orders as per the provisions of the Act and keeping in view the observations made by us supra. Therefore, W.P. No. 5585 of 1996 is disposed of with a direction to the Government to consider the same as per the provisions of the Act and keeping in mind the observations made by us supra. However, in all these cases, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.