V KRISHNAKUMARI Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER LAND REFORMS NOW RE DESIGNATED AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LAND REFORMS TIRUNELVELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER herein challenges the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dated 28.6.1998 in Spl. Revision Petition No. 12 of 1998. The facts are rather peculiar.

(2.) PETITIONER claimed to be belonging to the family of one T.K. Eswara pillai of Kere lapuram, Kanyakumari District. The said Eswara Pillai had expired on 6.6.1990, leave behind him his wife Prasannakumari and sons Kumarapillai and Vasanthakumar and daughters Soruparani and Krishnakumari (petitioner herein) as his heirs. The family of late Eswara Pillai was managing the lands of one Iravipurathu Sri Krishnasami Koil, Keralapuram, Thuckalay, which was a private trust. The said trust owned extensive lands a nd needless to say that Eswara Pillai being the Trustee and head of the family was managing the said lands. After the advent of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The said Eswara Pillai filed the returns under the Act as the total extent of the lands owned by the Trust and which were managed by the members of the family exceeded 15 Standard acres, which was the ceiling limit under Sec. 5 of the Act. The enquiry ensued on the return s and the authorised officer by his order dated 17-9-1984 held that the private trust represented by the family held surplus stands to the extent of 10.26 standard acres. An appeal came to be filed against this order by the owners. That appeal was dismissed on 29-5-1987. Thereafter, a writ petition came to be filed vide W.P. No. 8539 of 1997 before the Madras High Court, questioning the proceedings of the authorised officer and the Tribunal, but, that writ petition was also transferred to the Special Appellate Tribunal, which was renumbered as Tr.P No. 91 of 1994 and by order dated 4-4-1995, the Tribunal dismissed the said petition. In pursuance of that a notification declaring 10.26 standard acres of lands as surplus lands has also been issued. It must be menentioned at this juncture that before all this happened, the petitioner was happily married and she had ceased to be the family-member of Eswara Pillai. She had no concern whatsoever with the lands. She did not own or possess even a cent of the above mentioned lands which originally belonged to the private trust and were being managed by her father and brothers. It is for the first time in the year 1998, after the notification under Sec. 18(1) of the Act was published that the petitioner woke-up and filed a revision under Sec. 83 of the Act before the Tribunal. It is interesting to note that there she contended on the basis of Sec. 5(3-A) of the Act that the lands belonging to private trust would be deemed to be the lands owned by the beneficiaries under the private trust and the beneficiaries would be deemed to be the owners of the lands to the extent of their shares and, therefore, the earlier proceedings which had ignored the beneficiaries and more particularly the beneficiary like her were all illegal. By way of prayer, she sought for writ of Certiorari(") calling for the records of the impugned proceedings of the authorised officer and sought a relief to quash the orders. This revision has been dismissed by the learned Member of the Tribunal which has resulted in the present writ petition.