VENKATESAN NAIDU Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN respect of the holdings of agricultural lands belonging to the third respondent, action was initiated under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 58 of 1961, hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?. A final statement under S. 12 of the Act and the notification under S 18(1) of the Act were published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 23-2-1966 and 9-31966 respectively. According to the petitioner, in the said final statement, an extent of 3.57 acres in R.S. No. 95 was included in the retainable extent of lands of the third respondent. By a Sale Deed dated 30-3-1964, the said land in R.S. No. 95 was purchased by the 4th respondent herein. By a further document dated 26-3-1968, the petitioner and his wife purchased the said lands from the 4th respondent. While so, a revision of the final statement in respect of the holdings of the third respondent was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 4-6-1980. IN this revised statement, the said extent of 3.75 acres in R.S. No. 95 has been declared as surplus lands of the third respondent. The petitioner, therefore, preferred a revision petition R.P. No. 120 of 1980 before the second respondent. The second respondent dismissed the revision petition by an order dated 23-9-1982. The present writ petition is to quash the said order dated 23-9-1982.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In the impugned order of the second respondent, it is pointed out that as per the directions of the Land Commissioner made in R.P. No. 184/1979 and as per the judgment of the Land Tribunal, the final statement bad to be revised. Apparently, certain purchasers of lands from the third respondent, which land has been declared as surplus land, had approached the authorities for releasing their lands from acquisition by the Government. On aocount of the release of the said lands, some other lands of the third respondent had to be shown as surplus. It is under these circumstances that the lands purchased by the petitioner had come to be shown as surplus lands in the revised statement dated 4-6-1980. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the land owner had sold away the entire lands and the sales were made after 2-10-1962. Therefore, the authorities had to arrange the sales date wise and the lands covered by the later sales were kept within the ceiling limit of the land owner chronologically from the last sale It is under these circumstances, that the transactions originally effected by the land owner in the year 1964 to and in favour of the 4th respondent had to be declared as surplus.