V.S. VALLIPPA CHETTIAR (DECEASED) AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (L.R.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order of the learned Land Tribunal confirming the order of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Ramanathapuram and dismissing the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE facts are : The estate called R.M.P.V. Estate owned by late Palaniappa Chettiar of Poolankuruchi had extensive lands in Minnamalaipatti and Melavanniaruppu villages. After the death of the original owner Palaniappa Chettiar in the year 1920, his descendants were enjoying the income derived from the estate according to their shares. Some of the descendants of late Palaniappa Chettiar formed a new firm called V.S.R.M., but the Authorised Officer held that the properties owned by the new firm as well as R.M.P.V. firm are joint family properties. Some lands owned by the said estate were sold to V.S.R.M. firm during the period between 6th April, 1960 and 2nd October, 1962. The partners of V.S.R.M. firm filed a joint statement before the Authorised Officer wherein they stated that the lands sold to V.S.R.M. firm could be included in their ceiling limit and one of the partners requested the Authorised Officer not to proceed with the enquiry under Section 22 of the Land Reforms Act. Those lands mentioned in that petition were included within the ceiling limit of the said persons and the Authorised Officer dropped proceedings under Section 22 of the Act. The learned Authorised Officer issued notice under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act to the partners of V.S.R.M. firm and also to R.M.P.V. Subramanian Chettiar and Muthukaruppi Achi who are also the descendants of Palainappa Chettiar for enquiry. The master was enquired into and the Authorised Officer passed an order declaring 83.04 standard acres as surplus lands to be surrendered by these persons. Aggrieved by the said decision, they filed an appeal before the Land Tribunal who dismissed the appeal observing that "there are no merits in the appeal". It is against that order of the Tribunal that this revision is filed.

(3.) IT is necessary now to refer to the statement filed in this case (The statement at page 401 of the Authorised Officer's file, Vol. I is by Meenakshi Achi). The statement runs thus: