KANDASWAMY GOUNDAR Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER (LAND REFORMS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by P. Kandaswamy Gounder against whom proceedings were taken by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Coimbatore. By his order dated 20th July, 1973 the Authorised Officer found that Kandaswamy Gounder was possessed of a surplus extent of 3.560 acres. The petitioner in this Court Kandaswamy Goundar objected to the Authorised Officer finding a surplus of 3.560 acres on the ground that his mother Srimathi Ponnammal was entitled to a share in his father's property and the same has to be excluded from his holdings and that the suit filed by his mother against him for declaration of her rights is pending in the civil Court. It may be mentioned that the father of Kandaswamy Goundar and husband of Ponnammal died on 2nd November, 1948. After the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 the mother became entitled to half share in the separate property of her husband along with her son. Subsequently the suit filed by the mother was decreed on 12th September, 1973.

(2.) THE reason for rejecting the contention of Kandaswamy the petitioner herein given by the authorised officer as well as the Land Tribunal is that the lands were under the enjoyment of Kandaswamy on 15th February, 1970 and the village account also showed that the lands were in his name and the fact that civil proceedings were pending which were initiated in the year 1973 after the publication of draft statement under Section 10(1) need not be taken into account. The Land Tribunal was of the view that as the preliminary decree in the 'civil suit was passed after 2nd October, 1970 the preliminary decree will not be valid and the decree passed in favour of Ponnammal on 12th September, 1973 in O.S. No. 411 of 1973 cannot be taken note of. The Land Tribunal was of the view that Section 3(14)(ii) and Section 21 -A(a) do not indicate that if a person has got a preexisting right in respect of certain properties and a preliminary decree is passed after the notified date such preliminary decree can be held to be valid. The Land Tribunal rejected the contention that the preliminary decree passed on 12th September, 1973 is only an adjustment of pre -existing right which Ponnammal had in respect of the properties, and that the decree must be held to be valid.

(3.) THIS petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.