STATE OF MADRAS Vs. K.G. RAMANI IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents' case that their lands in R. S. Nos. 41/4, 82/5 and 82/6 are exempt from the operation of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that they are orchards, was not accepted by the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Mayuram. But, on appeal, the Land Tribunal (The Subordinate Judge of Mayuram) accepted the contention of the respondents and allowed their appeal. It is to canvass the correctness of the judgment of the Tribunal that the State of Madras represented by the Collector of Thanjavur has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) THE learned Additional Government Pleader raises two contentions in support of the petitioner's case that the order of the Tribunal is wrong and erroneous. It is firstly argued that the respondents have not adduced proof to show that the lands in question continued to be orchards from the date of their conversion as orchards on or before 1st day of July, 1959, which is the stipulated date under Section 73 (vii) of the Act and that, without such proof being adduced, the respondents are not entitled to claim exemption from the operation of the Act. The second ground that is urged is that the growing of plantains will not constitute an orchard as defined in Section 3 (32) of the Act.

(3.) AS I have already stated above, the second contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the raising of plantain crops will not render the lands where such crops are raised orchards and that unless the said lands could be classified either as orchards, or topes or arecanut gardens, the respondents will not be entitled to claim the benefit of the exemption provided under Section 73 (vii). In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader, it is necessary to make reference to the definition of an orchard occurring in Section 3 (32) of the Act. The definition is as follows -