ANTONY VIAGULAM FERNANDO, THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY AUGUSTINE Vs. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (LAND REFORMS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANTONY Viagulam Fernando - -the landowner within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, LVIII of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is the petitioner in this revision. The landowner held an extent of 25.49 ordinary acres. He had a son by name Selvakumar, who held an extent of 43.09 ordinary acres. The landowner has a wife by name Celia Costa. The landowner has an unmarried daughter by name Marina. Out of the total extent of 25.49 ordinary acres, the landowner executed a deed of settlement on 30th September, 1970, giving his unmarried daughter Marina an extent of 7.53 ordinary acres. On the same day, the mother of the landowner and the grandmother of Marina settled on Marina an extent of 7 ordinary acres. The son Selvakumar died on 16th November, 1967. He is said to have a left a will dated 30th May, 1967 under which the lands held by him of an extent of 43.09 ordinary acres, have been bequeathed in equal moieties to the mother Celia Costa and to one Francis Baldans, stated to be a close associate of Selvakumar. Proceedings under the Act have been taken by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Koviloatti, in respect of the above holdings. All the lands viz., 25.49 ordinary acres which stood in the name of the landowner, including 7.53 ordinary acres gifted away to his daughter Marina; 43.09 ordinary acres which stood in the name of Selvakumar, the Revenue Registry in respect of which is transferred in the name of the mother Celia Costa subsequently; and 7 ordinary acres gifted to Marina by her grandmother, have been pooled for the purpose of the Act and the Authorised Officer passed orders under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act. The Authorised Officer declined to give effect to the Will and did not take note of the settlements in favour of the daughter, Marina.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Authorised Officer, the landowner preferred an appeal C.M.A. (L.T.) No. 2 of 1976 which was heard and disposed of by the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Tuticorin and the Land Tribunal except with regard to the settlements in favour of the daughter Marina, found no justification for interference and dismissed the appeal. In respect of the lands covered by the settlements in favour of the daughter Marina, the Land Tribunal directed that the matter could be agitated in the course of the enquiry under 10(5) of the Act. The present revision is directed against the judgment and decree of the Land Tribunal.

(3.) AGAIN , at paragraph 702, as to what is a Court in law is set out in the following terms: