P SOMASUNDARAM Vs. M GOVINDASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the petitioner herein. The respondent herein filed Petition No. 1043 of 1974 before the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court) Tiruvarur, seeking resumption of agricultural land measuring 1.21 acres lying in S. Nos. 148/2, 166/1 and 135/6 of Thattathimulai village Nannilam taluk, for his personal cultivation, under S. 4 -AA (3) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The respondent was serving in the Armed Forces from 17-10-1962 to 31-8-1967. The suit lands were purchased by him by a registered document in Bo. 761/66 D/- 10-6-1966. After his discharge from the Army on 31-8-1967, the respondent wanted to have personal cultivation of the lands he purchased on 10-6-1966. In order to get the resumption of the lands, the respondent filed a petition under Section 4 -AA of the Act. The petitioner herein contended that the respondent was not a 'landlord' on the date of his joining the Armed Forces; that he became a landlord only in 1966, that he has no facility of cultivation in the village and that therefore the petition for resumption should be dismissed.

(2.) The Revenue Court, overruling the objections of the tenant (who is the petitioner herein) ordered resumption of the lands by the respondent herein. To revise the said order of the Revenue Court, the tenant has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) Mohan, J. before whom the revision petition came, in the course of his order, interpreting sub-sec. (3) of S. 4 -AA of the Act, observed that the words 'landlord who is enrolled as a member of the Armed Forces' (occurring therein) do merely qualify the landlord, but that does not mean to state that at the time when he is enrolled as a member of the Armed Forces, he should be a 'landlord'. This view of his, Mohan, J. felt will be in conflict with the view expressed by Ramaprasada Rao, J. (as he then was) in C. R. P. No. 2156 of 1975. Ramaprasada Rao, J. (as he then was) field the view that sub-see. (3) of S. 4 -AA makes it clear that on the date when a person joins the Defence Services, he should be a 'landlord' within the meaning of the Act, and then only he has the right to get resumption under sub-see. (3) of Section 4 -AA. Since Mohan, J. felt that he cannot agree with this view of Ramaprasada Rao, J. (as he then was), he directed the papers to be placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice, and the Chief Justice has directed the matter to be posted before a Bench. Thus, the matter has come up before us. Inasmuch as the main revision petition itself could he disposed of apart from solving the conflicting views in regard to sub-section (3) of S. 4 -AA, we feel that the main revision petition itself could be disposed of.