GANESAN Vs. MADURAL ASARI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions for review of the judgment, dt. 23rd September 1977, reported in Ganesan v/s. Madurai Achari, 91 L.W. 6=, 1977 T.L.N.J. 437 have arisen because the amendment to the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Kudiyiruppu Ownership Act,) had not been noticed at that time. The Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Amendment Act 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act) was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 27th March, 1976. By virtue of S. 1(2) of the said Amendment Act, the same shall be deemed to have come into force on the 24th of December 1971. Unfortunately, the said amending provision was not brought to my notice by anyone when the second appeals were heard and the judgment delivered. The Court copy of the Act placed before me had also not been corrected by pasting the necessary amendment slip. In my judgment I have observed that the Act (referring to the Kudiyiruppu Ownership Act) nowhere states that the question as to whether a site is a Kudiyiruppu or not is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Authorised Officer. In view of the Amendment Act that observation is incorrect, S.4 of the Amendment Act introduced in the Parent Act two new Sections, namely Ss. 3 -A and 3 -B. S.3 -B says that the Authorised Officer is to decide whether a person is an agriculturist or agricultural labourer as well as whether any site is a Kudiyiruppu or not.

(2.) Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned counsel appearing for the tenant contends that under the above circumstances my judgment should be varied.

(3.) I am of the view that in spite of the above amendment, the judgment should stand.