LexLAND COMMISSIONER, MADRAS AND ANR. versus RAJESHWARI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
LAND COMMISSIONER, MADRAS AND ANR. A V. RAJESHWARI APRIL 3, 2003 [K.y. BALAKRISHNAN AND G. P. MATHUR, JJ.] B land laws: Tamil Nadu land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act, 1961; Ss. 3(14) & 5: c land ceiling-Holding of stridhana land exceeding standard !imit- lnclusion of-Surplus land-Declaration of-Held: Combined effect of provision of law under Sections 5(/)(a), 5(4)(a) and 5(4)(b)(i) is that a family is entitled to hold the land equivalent to certain prescribed ceiling limit of D land plus stridhana land- Since holding of stridhana land cannot be treated as a separate unit of the female member, family of the respondent was holding less than 'ceiling limit -Hence, surplus land declared by the authority was illegal-Interpretation of Statutes. Words & Phrases: 'Stridhana Land'-Meaning and scope of in the context of Tamil Nadu land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act, 1961. E In the proceeding initiated against the husband of the respondent under Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, the F Authorised Officer declared 3. 06 standard acres of land as surplus land and published in the official gazette. Land Commissioner dismissed the revision petition preferred against the order of the authority. The respondent preferred a writ petition which was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court and affirmed by the Division Bench. Hence the present appeal. G It was contended for the appellant-authority that the family of the respondent consisted of six members and the respondent was holding 13. 06 standard acres of land as stridhana land; besides her husband held 8 . . 23 standard acres of land which combinedly exceeded the ceiling limit of H 361 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R. A land holding viz. 20 standard acres; that the respondent, a female member, had to be excluded from consideration as family member; and that the respondent was not entitled to hold stridhana exceeding I 0 standard acres of land as per provisions of law. On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that since the B proceedings had been initiated against her husband, the land held by the respondent as stridhana could not have been declared as surplus in the proceedings; that as per relevant provisions of law under the T. N. Land Act additional benefit is given to the female family member provided she should not claim double benefits both u/ss. 5(l)(b) and 5(4)(a) but she could C not be treated as deemed member of the family. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The clear import of Section 5(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act is that where the D stridhana land held by any female member of a family together with the other land held by all the members of that family is in excess of 15 standard acres, the female member concerned may hold an additional 10 standard acres of stridhana land. This provision does not make any reference to the number of members of the family and this advantage of allowing a female member to hold additional stridhana land not exceeding E 10 standard acres is given in every case. 1367-A-BI F 1.2. The purpose of enacting Section 5(4)(b)(i) is that a female member having stridhana land may not get double advantage, by claiming 5 standard acres of additional land under Section 5(1 )(b) and also I 0 standard acres of additional land under Section 5(4)(a) of the Act. The legislature has made it more than clear by using the expression "for the purposes of clause (b) to sub-section (l)" in Section 5(4)(b)(i) of the Act. The combined effect of Section 5(l)(a), Section 5(4)(a) and Section 5(4)(b)(i) is that the family is entitled to hold 15 standard acres of land and in addition, the respondent-wife in her own right is entitled to hold G stridhana land to the PX tent of 10 standard acres. The total holding of the family is less than the prescribed ceiling limit of 15 standard acres plus 10 standard acres and, therefore, the surplus declared by the Authorised Officer which was upheld by the Land Commissioner is clearly illegal. 1367-C-D-E] H 1.3. The Tamil nadu Land Reforms (FiXation of Ceiling on Land) - I ·. LAND COMMISSIONER v. RAJESHW ARI 363 Act, 1961 has been enacted to provide for the fixation of ceiling on A agricultural land holdings and for certain other matters connected therewith. The Scheme of the Act clearly shows that the ceiling area has to be determined wi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.