RAMACHANDRA CHETTIAR Vs. G.M. RAMASWAMI CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Cuddalore, overruling the objections raised under Section 10 (5) of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act (LVIII of 1961), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the said order having been confirmed by the appellate Judge (Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore). The lands in question belonged to one G. M. Ramaswami Chettiar. He had, amongst other lands a half share in nine survey numbers. The said half share in all the nine items came to be sold in Court -auction and the revision petitioner herein purchased the same on 5th January, 1967. The total extent so purchased is 5.38 acres. He obtained the sale certificate on 18th March, 1967.

(2.) THE said Ramaswami Chettiar who has been impleaded as the first respondent in this revision petition had filed a return under the provisions of the Act and the Authorised Officer prepared the draft statement under Section 10 (1) of the Act which is dated 18th October, 1967. In the said draft statement only one of the nine items was shown as surplus. Notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act came to be served on the revision -petitioner as a person interested in the land. The revision petitioner filed his objections on 10th January, 1968. The Authorised Officer however, overruled his objections by his order, dated 16th March, 1968. Against that the revision -petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 66 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore but the said appeal -came to be dismissed on 10th August, 1972. Hence this revision petition and the same had been presented in this Court; on 22nd September, 1972.

(3.) THE question is whether the taking over of lands which the revision -petitioner purchased in the Court auction as surplus of the holding of Ramaswami Chettiar is -valid. Under Section 23 of the Act, the provision is that in fixing, for the first time after the date of the commencement of the Act, the ceiling area of any person holding land in excess of 30 standard acres (since amended as 15 standard acres), the Authorised Officer shall not take into consideration any transfer including a sale in execution of a decree. Admittedly, the Court auction sale under which the revision -petitioner purchased the lands, being on 5th January, 1967, is after the notified date mentioned in Section 23. The Authorised Officer and. the learned Appellate Judge have overruled the objections of the revision -petitioner on the ground that under Section 23 of the Act the Authorised Officer was to ignore the sale. But it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Kaliyaperumal Nattar v. Authorised Officer : AIR1973Mad389 , that as Section 23 does not say that the transfer (made after the notified date) is rendered. void and the section does not deal with the transferee's fight, there is nothing in the Act to affect the rights of the transferee. In that case there was the draft statement under Section 10 followed by the final statement under Section 12. Thereafter, there was a notification under Section 18 (1) and proclamation under Section 18 (2), in respect of the surplus lands which according to the provisions of the Act vested in the Government. The Division Bench has pointed out that as Section 23 does not say that the transfer by itself is bad for any reason and as the transfer is not rendered void either expressly or by any statement in the section and the section does not deal with the transferee's rights, the Authorised Officer had no right to take the land in the possession of the transferee.. The above decision. squarely applies to the facts of the present case.