LAND COMMISSIONER CHEPAUK MADRAS Vs. RAJESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ appeal has been filed against the order of a learned single judge of this Court dated 15.11.1989 in W.P. No. 8150 of 1981, whereunder, the learned single judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, seeking to quash the order of the 1st appellant made in his proceedings dated 7.5.1981, confirming the final statement published under section 12 of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, Act 58 of 1961, as amended by Act 17 of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the 2nd appellant in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 13.8.1980.

(2.) NECESSARY and relevant facts for the purpose of appreciation of the claim projected in this appeal, are, that the respondent/Rajeswari is the wife of one Vivekananda Reddiar and they have four children. The respondent (wife) had in her own right, held and extent of 25.15 ordy. acres, equivalent to 13.06 std. acres of land as stridhana property. The head of the family, Vivekananda Reddiar held 15.19 ordy. acres, equivalent to 8.23 std. acres. proceedings were initiated under the Act to determine the ceiling of land in respect of the family, of which Vivekananda Reddiar was the head. The stand taken by the Authorised Officer, as also the land Commissioner in fixing the ceiling for the family and preparing and publishing the final statement was that in as much as the family consisted of six members and a female member is holding land more than 5 standard acres, she is not to be considered as a member of the family, in view of section 5(4) (b)(i) of the Act and in as much as a maximum extent of 10 standard acres had to be allowed to the family member holding stridhana lands in excess of five standard acres, the remaining extent of 3.06 standard acres, out of the holding of the female member, the respondent herein, has to be declared as surplus. The respondent aggrieved against the orders of the 1st appellant herein, confirming the orders or the 2nd appellant, filed the writ petition. The learned single judge has adverted to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in V. Govindaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1978 (91) L.W. 615, wherein Ramanujam, J speaking for the Division Bench, presided over by Ramaprasada Rao, C.J., in almost identical facts and similar circumstances, held that it was not correct for the Department to treat the wife's holdings as separate unit and on that footing, after deducting 10 standard acres, which she is entitled to hold as stridhana holder, treated the balance as surplus in her hands and allowed the writ petition, applying the ratio laid down therein. Hence, the above writ appeal.