VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER AND ASST COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 have preferred this writ petition as against the order dated 01. 08. 2001 in S. R. P. No. 15 of 1999 passed by the third respondent/special Appellate Tribunal and to quash the same.

(2.) THE third respondent/special Appellate Tribunal, while passing orders in S. R. P. No. 15 of 1999 on 01. 08. 2001, has, inter alia, held that 'the lands held by Chinnammal by virtue of settlement deed dated 22. 7. 59 and registered as document No. 2157/59 in Survey Nos. 60, 75/1, 75/3, 69/8 and 62/1 of Alasanthapuram village have to be excluded from the holdings of the land owner Maikanna Gounder, and in all other respects have rejected the objections and contentions raised by the writ petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 and has further directed the Authorised Officer of Land Reforms at Villupuram to issue notices individually to the petitioners/ respondents 3 to 5 and after hearing them for suggesting the surplus lands as required under Section 10 (4) of the Act, the Authorised Officer of the Land Reforms at Villupuram has been directed to publish a revised draft statement under Section 10 (5) of the Act and to proceed further in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and resultantly, allowed the Special Revision Petition in part and set aside the judgment of the second respondent/land Tribunal, Thanjavur dated 11. 12. 97 in LTCMA. No. 28/1997. '

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 submits that the first petitioner/third respondent's grandfather Hanumantharaya Gounder (deceased) owned agricultural lands to an extent of 188. 80 ordinary acres equivalent to 55. 969 standard acres in the Villages of Alasanthapuram, Simukampattu and Narayanapuram in Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District and during his life time, he settled an extent of 16. 58 ordinary acres of land situated at Alasanthapuram Village by means of a settlement deed dated 22. 7. 1959 in favour of his mother Chinnammal which is a registered document bearing No. 2157/59 at the office of Sub-Registrar, Vaniyambadi and further on the same day, he settled another extent of 10. 77 ordinary acres of land situated at Narayanapuram in her favour and in favour of the second petitioner/fourth respondent absolutely with mother Rathinammal as Guardian and added further, the grandfather of the first petitioner/third respondent has settled an extent of 113. 83 ordinary acres of lands situated at Simukampattu village in favour of her father Maikanna Gounder and her mother Rathinammal by means of registered settlement deed dated 22. 7. 1959 giving them right of possession and enjoyment of the said lands for their life time without any power of alienation with a further condition after the life time the said lands should be equally shared by the petitioners/respondents 3 to 5 and also that her grandfather Hanumantharaya Gounder retained an extent of 47. 67 ordinary acres of lands situated at Alasanthapuram out of the total extent owned by him and continuing further, the first petitioner/third respondent's grandfather expired on 01. 06. 1964 leaving behind him his wife Nagammal and his daughter Rathinammal as legal heirs and as such, her grandmother Nagammal and mother Rathinammal have succeeded to the extent of 47. 67 ordinary acres retained by her grandfather Hanumantharaya Gounder and in an extent of 113. 83 acres settled in favour of her father and mother consisted of fruit bearing trees planted before 1959 and the first respondent commenced proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 against her grandfather Maikanna Gounder as if he was the owner of an entire extent of 188. 80 ordinary acres equivalent to 55. 969 standard acres as on 15. 2. 1970 and her grandfather has been called upon to attend an enquiry on 04. 12. 1992 and in the enquiry he appraised that only an extent of 113. 80 ordinary acres of lands were settled both in his favour and his wife and that they had the life interest only in the aforesaid lands and the first respondent/authorised Officer was informed about the lands retained by the grandfather and the factum of his death on 01. 06. 1964 and he was called upon to file Form No. 2 by 14. 12. 1992 and he could not file the form as he suffered heart attack apart from the fact that he was a chronic diabetic patient and therefore, it was not correct to state that he refused to receive the notices sent by the Authorised Officer and even the endorsements of the postal authorities stated that her father had not come and received the notice and as a matter of fact, the report of Special Revenue Inspector was not correct since he never gave any intimation in this regard.