(made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.) Aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.1999 passed by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in SRP No. 12 of 1999 wherein and by which the Special Appellate Tribunal disagreed with the order passed by the Appellate Authority and District Revenue Officer, Land Tribunal, Thanjavur in L.T.C.M.A. No. 5 of 1996 thereby restoring the order of the Assistant Commissioner and Authorised Officer of Land Reforms at Villupuram dated 30.10.1995.
2. Originally, the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), who is the Authorised Officer, initiated action against the petitioner, who is the land owner, on the ground that since she and her husband were holding lands of more than the ceiling area as on 20.5.1970, the date of their marriage, her family is attracted by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970 (Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1970) [for short, 'Act'] and by allowing an extent of 6.15 standard acres of land in Section I and an extent of 10.00 standard acres of land towards stridhana land in Section VI, an order dated 01.02.1979 was passed under
Section 9(2)(b) of the Act declaring that the petitioner is having 7.78 standard acres of surplus land in Section VI as against which C.M.A. No. 142 of 1979 was filed by way of appeal and the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur, by an order dated 21.3.1988 remanded the case for fresh consideration thereby allowing the appeal with observations that the Authorised Officer shall treat the petitioner in the status of unmarried separated daughter as on 15.02.1970 and declare surplus accordingly under the provisions of the Act and that the Authorised Officer shall give a specific finding whether the lands claimed to have been given possession in furtherance of the agreement of sale dated 15.4.1970 has actually taken place and if so to exclude that extent while determining the holding of her family as on 20.5.1970. As against the same, the State preferred Civil Revision Petition being C.R.P. No. 1755 of 1981 before this Court and this Court by order dated 02.9.1982, set aside the direction of the Tribunal regarding exclusion of the lands sold to Karna Gounder while confirming the order of the Tribunal in other aspects.
3. Subsequent to the order of High Court, the first respondent Assistant Commissioner passed an order dated 03.4.1991 under
Section 9(2)(b) of the Act and since there was some clerical mistake, another order was passed on 06.8.1991 declaring an extent of 6.15 standard acres of land as surplus pursuant to which a draft statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was published in the Government Gazette dated 16.10.1991. Finally, an order was passed on 30.10.1995 under Section 10(5) of the Act declaring an extent of 3.520 standard acres as surplus and the appeal filed as against the same before the Appellate Authority and District Revenue Officer, Land Tribunal, Thanjavur, was allowed by order dated 22.10.1996 declaring no surplus land. As against the same, the Authorised officer and Assistant Commissioner, (Land Reforms), Villupuram, approached the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal by filing a revision being SRP No. 12 of 1999 wherein and by which the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Authorised Officer was restored by order dated 28.10.1999. Hence, the writ petition by the land owner.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner landlady contended that the petitioner got married only on 20.5.1970 and on the date of commencement of the Act, viz., 15.02.1970, she was an unmarried separated daughter holding an extent of 13.52 standard acres and, therefore, the authorities have misapplied the provisions of the Act. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Land Commissioner, Madras and another v. Rajeswari [2003 (5) SCC 210] wherein a similar issue was considered by the Supreme Court in paragraph 6 in the following lines:-
".... It may be noted that this provision, namely, Section 5(4)(a) does not make any reference to the number of members of the family and this advantage of allowing a female member to hold additional stridhana land not exceeding 10 standard acres is given in every case. The purpose of enacting
Section 5(4)(b)(i) is that a female member having stridhana land may not get double advantage, namely, by claiming 5 standard acres of additional land under Section 5(1)(b) and also 10 standard acres of additional land under Section 5(4)(a) of the Act. The legislature has made it more than clear by using the expression for the purposes of clause (b) to sub-section (1) in
Section 5(4)(b)(i) of the Act...."
5. He further contended that as on the date of preparation of draft statement, viz., 10.4.1991, under Section 10(1) of the Act, her family consisted of seven members, i.e, herself, her husband and five children, and hence, her family is entitled to hold 25.00 standard acres of land, which is within the ceiling limit, as per Sections 10(2) and 5(1)(b) of the Act. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner had stridhana land to the extent of 17.78= acres in her own name and that in view of
Section 5(4)(a) of the Act, additional benefit is to be given to the family member holding stridhana land. On these grounds, he sought for interference of this Court.
6. Learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents submitted that the family of the petitioner consisted of seven members and the petitioner in her own right held 17.78= standard acres as her stridhana land while her husband Jayachandran held 6.15 standard acres. The family consisted of seven members and in the normal course, the ceiling limit would be 20 standard acres but as the petitioner had in her own right stridhana land in excess of 7.78= acres, therefore, by virtue of Section 5(4)(b)(i) of the Act, she shall not be deemed to be a member of the family and, therefore, she had to be excluded from consideration. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of
Section 5(4)(a) of the Act, only a maximum extent of 10 standard acres can be included in the holding of the family as stridhana land and where the stridhana land to the extent of 10 standard acres held by a female member has been included in the family-holding, the said female member is not entitled to hold any stridhana land in addition to the extent which has been allowed to be included under
Section 5(4)(a) of the Act.
7. Learned Senior Counsel, by way of the reply to the above said contention, submitted that the only effect of Section 5(4)(b)(i) is that a female member holding stridhana land may not claim double benefit both under Sections 5(1)(b) and
5(4)(a) of the Act and not that she shall not be deemed to be a member of the family.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
9. 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, which read as under:-
"3.(14) 'family' in relation to a person means the person, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her--
(i) minor sons and unmarried daughters, and
(ii) minor grandsons and unmarried granddaughters in the male line, whose father and mother are dead.
Explanation I -* * * (Omitted as not relevant) Explanation II -* * * (Omitted as not relevant) * * *
5. Ceiling area.--(1)(a) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3-A), (3-B) and (3-C) and of Chapter VIII, the ceiling area in the case of every person (other than the institutions referred to in clauses (c) and (d) and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3-A), (3-B), (4) and (5) and of Chapter VIII, the ceiling area in the case of every family consisting of not more than five members shall be 15 standard acres.
(b) The ceiling area in the case of every family consisting of more than five members shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3-A), (3-B), (3-C), (4) and (5) and of Chapter VIII, be 15 standard acres together with an additional 5 standard acres for every member of the family in excess of five.
(c) * * * (Omitted as not relevant) * * * (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) * * * (Omitted as not relevant) (4)(a) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5), where the stridhana land held by any female member of a family together with the other land held by all the members of that family, is in excess of 15 standard acres, the female member concerned may hold, in addition to the extent of land which the family is entitled to hold under sub-section (1), stridhana land not exceeding 10 standard acres:
Provided that where any extent of stridhana land held by a female member is included in the extent of land which the family is entitled to hold under sub-section (1) and in case where the extent so included is--
(i) 10 or more than 10 standard acres, she shall not be entitled to hold any stridhana land in addition to the extent so included; or
(ii) less than 10 standard acres, she may hold in addition to the extent so included an extent of stridhana land, which together with the extent so included, shall not exceed 10 standard acres.
(b) Where the extent of stridhana land held under clause (a) by any female member of a family consisting of more than five members --
(i) is 5 or more than 5 standard acres, she shall not be deemed to be a member of that family for the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1); or
(ii) is less than 5 standard acres, the additional extent of 5 standard acres allowed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) be reduced by the same extent as the extent of stridhana land so held.
* * * (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and in sub-section (4) and in Chapter VIII the total extent of the land held or deemed to be held by any family shall in no case exceed 30 standard acres."
10. A plain reading of the above quoted provisions of the Act would show that under Sections 5(1)(a) and (b), the ceiling in case of a family consisting of not less than five members is 15 standard acres and where the family consists of more than five member is 15 standard acres and where the family consists of more than five members, subject to provisions referred to in sub-clause (b), the family will be entitled to additional 5 standard acres of land for every member of the family in excess of five. In view of Section 5(5) of the Act, the total extent of the land held by a family shall in no case exceed 30 standard acres. Section 5(2) lays down that all 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.
Section 5(4)(a) provides that where the stridhana land held by any female member of a family together with the other land held by all the members of that family is in excess of 15 standard acres, the female member concerned may hold, in addition to the extent of land which the family is entitled to hold under sub-section (1), stridhana land not exceeding 10 standard acres.
11. The clear import of Section 5(4)(a) of the Act is that where the stridhana land held by any female member of a family together with the other land held by all the members of that family is in excess of 15 standard acres, the female member concerned may hold an additional 10 standard acres of stridhana land. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Special Government Pleader representing the Government that the family consisted of seven members and in the normal course, the ceiling limit would be 20 standard acres but as the petitioner had in her own right stridhana land in excess of 7.78= acres and, therefore, by virtue of
Section 5(4)(b)(i) of the Act, she shall not be deemed to be a member of the family, cannot be sustained.
12. Applying the above position of law to the facts and circumstances of the case, even ignoring the land sold to one Karna Gounder, the land owner is having lands to an extent of 13.520 standard acres whereas the family is having only 6.930 standard acres and the total extent of land is not exceeding 25 standard acres whereas it comes to only 20.450 acres. Therefore, both the Authorised officer and the Special Appellate Tribunal had committed an illegality in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is holding surplus land for an extent of 3.520 acres and the contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader on similar lines stands rejected.
13. It is also relevant to refer to the following passage found at paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra:-
".... The combined effect of Section 5(1)(a), Section 5(4)(a) and
Section 5(4)(b)(i) is that the family is entitled to hold 15 standard acres of land and in addition, the wife Rajeswari in her own right is entitled to hold stridhana land to the extent of 10 standard acres. In the case in hand the total holding of the family is less than the prescribed ceiling limit of 15 standard acres plus 10 standard acres and, therefore, the surplus declared by the Authorised Officer which was upheld by the Land Commissioner is clearly illegal."
14. Further, as per Section 5(5) of the Act, the total extent of the land held or deemed to be held by any family shall in no case exceed 30 standard acres. In the case on hand, the family of the petitioner consisted of seven members, ie., landlady herself, her husband and five children. It is pertinent to note that the administered ceiling is 15 standard acres whereas the family is having only 6.930 acres. The petitioner landlady is entitled to hold lands to an extent of 10 standard acres as stridhana and as such, the total extent of lands comes to 16.930 standard acres whereas the entitlement is 20.450 acres. Therefore, applying the above principle of law to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the family is holding less than the prescribed ceiling limit of 25 standard acres. Therefore, both the Authorised officer and Special Appellate Tribunal have committed illegality in interpreting and applying
Section 3(14) read with
Section 5(4)(a) of the Act.
For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Authorised Officer and Assistant Commissioner confirmed by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal needs to be interfered with. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the orders passed by the said authorities are set aside and the order of the Appellate Authority and District Revenue Officer, Land Tribunal, Thanjavur is upheld holding that the petitioner is not having any surplus standard acres. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
gri To
1. The Asst. Commissioner (Land Reforms) Villupuram
2. The Land Tribunal Thanjavur now at Chennai
3. The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal Chennai