DHANUSHKODI AMMAL Vs. LAND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Ayyavu Muthiriyar of Ananthimedu, hamlet of Sathamangalam, Lalgudi Taluk, was the land owner, whose holding was attracted by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 58/61, had two wives, by name Ponnupapammal and Papathi Ammal. Through the first wife Ponnu Papammal, he had two daughters Pichaiammal and Nagarathanam and through the second wife Papathi Ammal, he had three daughters Periakkal, Dhanushkoti (the first petitioner) and Parameswari (the second petitioner). Petitioners 3 to 5 are the children of the second petitioner Parameswari.

(2.) FROM the materials placed on record it is seen that the Authorised Officer concerned found that on the crucial date i.e. 6.4.1960, the landowner's family consisted of the landowner, his first wife Ponnupappa, his second wife Pappathi Ammal and his unmarried daughter Parameswari (the second petitioner herein). On 23.3.1955, the land owner executed a deed of settlement in favour of his five daughters. His first wife owned 8.75 acres and on his second wife, he settled 6.46 acres of land. According to the respondents as on 6.4.1990, the properties owned by Ayyavu and members of his family, as defined under Section 3(14) of the Act, were as follows:Ayyavu : 30.00 standard acresPonnu Papammal(the first wife): 7.29 standard acresPapathi Amma: 6.92 standard acres(the second wife)Minor Parameswari: 20.02 standard acres(the second petitioner) ------- 69.23 standard acres-------Periakkal, the eldest daughter through his second wife, died leaving 17.58 standard acres and in accordance with the settlement mentioned above, the second petitioner Parameswari got half of the said properties and thus the total holdings of Parameswari got increased to 28.79 standard acres.

(3.) THE Authorised Officer conducted an enquiry under Section 10(1) on the objections filed by both Subramnyam and Papathi Ammal and he over ruled the objections filed by Subrmanyam on the ground that Subramanyam is not a 'member of the family' as defined in the Act and that his claim under the Settlement Deed dated 10.5.1963 is hit by Section 22. As against the said order of the Authorised Officer, I.T.C.H.A.No.3 of 1966 was filed before the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Pudukottai and the said Tribunal, by the order dated 24.6.1966, set aside the order of the Authorised Officer and remanded the matter to the Authorised Officer for framing certain points and calling upon him to render his findings on those points. As against the said findings of the Land Tribunal, Civil Revision Petition No.1562 of 1966 was filed before this Court wherein a learned single Judge of this Court, by the order dated 24.12.1970, set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and further observing that Su8bramaniam need not be consulted in the matter of specifying the surplus lands as he was not a member of the family of the land owner and that the Authorised Officer would pass an order under Section 10(1) of the Act, after obtaining the required information.