ARUMUGA MUTHIRIYAR Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER THANJAVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROCEEDINGS have been initiated against the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act 57 of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for determining the cultivating tenants ceiling area of the petitioner and revision of the surplus lands to the second-respondent. There are certain extents demised by the second-respondent by way of lease to and in favour of the petitioner. To determine the cultivating tenants ceiling area of the petitioner in the above proceedings, the extents held by his sons are sought to be tacked on to the extents held by the petitioner under the cover of Sec.6-A of the Act. Sec.2(6) of the Act defines cultivating tenants celling area as follows:2(6) cultivating tenants ceiling are means five standard acres held by any person-(a) (i) partly as cultivating tenant and (ii) partly as owner or possessory mortgage or(b) Wholly as cultivating tenant. Sec. 6-A was introduced into the Act only by Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1973 and the said provision reads as follows:6-A. CULTIVATING TENANTS CEILING AREA OF A PERSON TO INCLUDE HIS SPOUSES MINORS SONS, OR UNMARRIED DAUGHTERS HOLDING:In calculating the extent of the person for the purpose of this Act, the extent of land held as cultivating tenant or as owner or as possessory mortgage by such person, his spouse, minor son and unmarried daughter shall not exceed five standard acres.

(2.) MR.K. Yamunan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that amongst the concerned extents there is an extent of 2.46 acres acquired on 21.8.1969 by the three sons of the Petitioner who were then minors but on the date when Sec.6-A was introduced by the Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1973, two of the three minor sons had attained majority and hence their shares cannot be tacked on to the holdings of the petitioner to determine his cultivating tenants ceiling agea. Learned counsel complains that though this contention was put forth by the petitioner both before the original authority and the appellate authority, the first-respondent herein, it was not properly adverted to and adjudicated upon and this has resulted in an unjust and an unsustainable order having come to be made while determining the petitioners cultivating teants ceiling area. I find that the petitioner did raise this contention before the authorities under the Act. But it has not found proper advertence to or adjudication upon at the hands of any of them. In the present writ petition, the order passed by the appellate authority, the first respondent, is being put in issue.

(3.) THEN the question is should not the authorities under the Act taking note of the above principles advert to and adjudicate upon the factual contention raised by the petitioner that on the date of the coming into force of Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1973, introducing Sec.6-A into the Act, two of his minor sons had attained majority and hence their shares in the land concerned should not be tacked on. It has been already noticed that though the petitioner raised this contention before the authorities under the Act, that has not been properly adverted to and adjudicated upon by any of them. There is a need to probe into the factual aspect in the back ground of the above legal principle and then consider the matter afresh and pass a decision thereon. Hence, this writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the file of the Special Deputy Collector (Public Trusts), Thiruvarur- since he is the original authority - for fresh consideration and disposal in the light of the above direction and in accordance with law. The said authority to whom a copy of this order shall also be marked, shall permit the petitioner to substantiate his case that two of his sons, who were minor vendees under the sale deed dated 21.8.1969 had attained majority when Sec.6-A was introduced into the Act by Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1973. The original authority shall also afford oppurtunity to the second - respondent to demonstrate that the above case of the petitioner could not be accepted on facts. If the original authority should come to the conclusion that in fact two of the sons of the petitioner, who were minor vendees under the sale deed dated 21.8.1969 had attained majority as above, then the extent relatable to their shares in the land covered by the said sale deed shall be excluded and thereafter the original authority shall proceed to determine the cultivating tenants ceiling area of the petitioner, if there is still a warrant for it. There will be no order as to costs in this writ petition.