SENNAMMAL Vs. LAND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINALLY, the petitioner filed Special Revision Petition under Section 83 of the Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 before the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, challenging an order of the Land Commissioner dated 22.12.2000 made in R.P.No.3 of 2000.. The said revision was taken on file as SRP.No.22 of 2001.

(2.) IN view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as CRP No.1926 of 2003. However, a learned Judge of this court opined that no Civil Revision Petition will lie as the officers whose orders under challenge were not a Court but only statutory authorities. Therefore, the CRP was converted into writ petition and notice was ordered.

(3.) THE land owner filed a revision before the first respondent Land Commissioner offering the alternative surplus land. THE offer was accepted and the matter was remitted to the second respondent Authorised Officer. After the remand and after accepting the offer of alternative land, necessary amendments were published in the form of notification in the Government Gazette on 11.04.1990. But however,the first respondent exercised his power of suo motu revision under Section 82 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (for short Land Reforms Act). He held that on the basis of the report of the Special Deputy Tahsildar that certain lands in S.No.7/3A, 418, 34/2 to the extent of 7.97 Ordinary acres were almost urban land and they were exempted. Even before the commencement of the Act, namely 18.05.1970, there was a settlement settling some of the lands in various survey numbers to the extent of 30.71 Ordinary acres were settled by Kumarandi, the settler on Kumarakkal during her life time and thereafter on her sister, namely the original petitioner. THE said Kumarakkal died on 06.12.1975. Two children were born to the original petitioner. One was on 28.11.1972 while Kumarakkal was alive. THErefore, five standard acres of land should have been allotted in the name of her child. However, S.No.69/2A was poramboke land and that was wrongly included as excess surplus land. THE authority held that these facts were to be verified by the Authorised Officer. THErefore, he was directed to make a thorough enquiry and to check the pormaboke nature of land in S.NO.69/2A so as to issue final statement under Section 12 of the Act. THE Land Commissioner also held that on verification of the records that the land owner was allowed to have 25 Std.Acres. But the verification showed that out of 95.17 Ordinary acres allowed to be retained, the land owner was still in possession of 22.23 acres only and land to the extent of 18.43 acres were sold to different persons and the remaining extent of 54.51 acres were also owned by several persons as per the village accounts. It is in that view of the matter, the power of suo motu was exercised by the Commissioner under Section 82 so as to verify if any false claim was made by the land owner.