N VISWANATHAN Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER LAND REFORMS MAYAVARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is a person affected by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act. THE Authorised Officer initiated action under the Act. A notification under section 18 (1) was made with regard to acquisition of surplus land forming part of the petitioners. holding. THE said notification was published on 20th June, 1979. In pursuance of the notification, under rule 45 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms etc, Rules, 1962, an order was passed fixing the compensation payable for the surplus land declared from the holding of the revision petitioner. This was done by the Authorised Officer as per his proceedings dated 10th September, 1979. THE draft assessment roll was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 21st November, 1979, in accordance with section 50 (3) (a) of the Act. That provision having a bearing on the question to be decided may be extracted at this stage:

(2.) THE revision petitioner filed his objections on 4th February, 1980 THE same was received by the Authorised Officer on 5th February, 1980, and by his proceedings, dated 13th February, 1980, he rejected the same, being time-barred, since they were filed beyond 30 days from the date of publication, namely, 21st November, 1979. THE revision petitioner once again preferred an objection petition on 22nd February, 1980, requesting reconsideration of his objection. THE said petition was also rejected as belated and not maintainable. Accordingly an endorsement was made by the authorised officer on 3rd March, 1980. THEreupon an appeal was preferred to the Land Tribunal, the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur. By his order, dated 1st November, 1980 in L. T. C. M A. No. 85 of 1980, the District Revenue Officer dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding of the Authorised Officer that the bar of limitation would operate against the petitioner, It is to revise the concurrent orders of the authorities below that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) AS against this, the learned Government Pleader would urge that clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 50 has nothing to do with the filing of objections and the only clause which deals with objections is clause (ii) of sub-section 3 (a) of section 50 and that clause categorically says .30 days from the date of publication.. To the same effect is Form No. 24 as . well, according to the learned Government Pleader, and the said Form is extracted below. Form No. 24. (See rule 45 (2) of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Rules, 1962, Notice under section 50(3)(a)(ii) of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Madras Act LVIII of 1961). Notice is hereby given that the amount of compensation payable for the surplus land acquired by the Government and as determined under section 50 (3) of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Madras Act LVIII of 1961) is specified in the draft compensation assessment roll enclosed. Any person, who has any objection to any entry in the draft compensation assessment roll, may prefer his objection in writing before the authorised officer within 30 days from the date of publication of the said draft in the Fort. St. George Gazette, namely ............ Objections received within the due date will enquired into at (time) .should be after thirty days of the publication of the draft compensation assessment roll.. on date at (place) when the objector may appear in person or by authorised agent and adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of the objections. Place: Date: Signature of the Authorised Officer. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, there is no justification for interference.