DHANUSHODI AMMAL Vs. LAND COMMISSIONER CHEPAUK MADRAS

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: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_312_MADLJ4_2010Html1.htm</FRM> 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.) Thereafter, the second petitioner herein by name Parameswari, who was a minor at that time, by her father and next friend filed W.P. No. 454 of 1963 before this Court for issue of a Writ of Prohibition directing the respondents (the State of Madras and the Authorised Officer) to forbear them from making any proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated 2.1.1963 issued to her, calling upon her to submit a return under Section 8 of the Act on the ground that the Act is ultra vires and that in any event, the definition of the word 'family' under Section 2(14) is arbitrary and discriminatory since if the said term 'family' is given effect, she would lose 8.79 acres as she remained unmarried and that the land owned by her i.e. 28.79 standard acres should not be taken into account while determining the surplus land available for requisition. In the meanwhile, Ayyavu submitted a return dated 31.1.1963 to the Authorised Officer, wherein he has stated that his holding alone should be taken into account in fixing the ceiling and that his daughter Parameswari's property should not be tagged on to his property. It is seen that the return submitted by Ayyavu was not complete, since he did not fill up the annexure-J under Form-2, giving particulars of the land, which he desired to retain within the ceiling area and the land which he desired to be declared as surplus land under Section 8(1)(viii).