SCERANGA GOUNDER Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER LAND REFORMS NOW REDESIGNATED AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ERODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil miscellaneous petition is for modification of the order passed in C.R.P.No.2316 of 1983 by this Court by directing the first respondent therein to drop the proceedings in respect of the lands in dispute. THE writ petition is for issue of a certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in F2 Misc., Petition 11/88 (L.Reforms) in R.P.No.75/ 88 and quash the order dated 25.8.1988 and implead the petitioners as parties to the said R.P.No.75/ 88. THE petitioners in the civil miscellaneous petition and the writ petition are the same. 2. Relevant facts are as follows:

(2.) PETITIONERS" father by name Perumal Gounder was a tenant under the second respondent in the civil miscellaneous petition and the third respondent in the writ petition, hereinafter referred to as the "land owner" with respect to an extent of 10.45 acres in S.F.No.28-A, 31 and 32 of Pudukalayanur Village of Sathi taluk, Periyar district. The land owner filed a petition under Sec.17 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, Act 58 of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for declaration under Sec.61(3)(b) of the Act, read with Rule 51(1) of the Rules framed under the Act that Perumal Gounder was holding surplus lands to the extent of 10.45 ordinary acres equivalent to 4.857 standards acres over and above the cultivating tenant's ceiling area fixed under the Act. The Authorised Officer granted the prayer of the land owner by his order dated 25.4.1979, Perumal Gounder filed an appeal before the Land Tribunal in I.T.A.No.33 of 1979. While it was pending Perumal Gounder died on 17.6.1980 PETITIONERS and another son of Perumal Gounder by name Ramasami came on record as the legal representatives of Perumal Gounder and continued the appeal. By order dated 28.2.1982 the appeal was allowed by the Land Tribunal. Against that order the landowner filed C.R.P.No.2316 of 1983 in this Court. By order dated 26.2.1987 the civil revision petition was allowed by Sathiadev, J., The relevant portion of the order in the civil revision petition reads as follows: 8. The standard acres for leased out lands is 4.857, and the total comes to 9.357 standard acres. Deducting 5 standard acres, 4,357 standard acres has to revert to petitioner herein. 9. Hence, the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Erode, will have to call upon the respondents to exercise the option as to which portion of the leased out lands of an extent of 00.50 standard acres they would like to retain, and then, balance extent to be.reverted to landlord. The petitioners referred to in the passage extracted above is the land owner and the respondents therein are the petitioners herein.

(3.) WITH regard to the question of the maintainability of the petition, it is the case of the petitioners" counsel that no parly shall suffer because of a mistake committed by the Courts and in this case, the Court committed a mistake in directing reversion to the land owner instead of the Government. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak, (1988)2 S.C.C. 602. My attention is drawn to paragraphs 98,103 and 104, which read as follows: