M.K. HARIHAR IYER versus AUTHORISED OFFICER LAND REFORMS, TIRUNELVELI

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 358 · Decided: 14-02-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
M.K. HARIHAR IYER 
v. 
AUTHORISED OFFICER LAND REFORMS, TIRUNELVELI 
FEBRUARY 14, 1990 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ., T.K. THOMMEN AND 
A.M. AHMADI, JJ.) 
Tami/nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 
1961-Sections 3(2), 3(31), 5(2), JO(B), 21A, 22, 23(vii)-Whether 
'affected person' can avail of Section 21A in respect of proceedings 
commenced prior to the 1970 Amending Act. 
The appellant land-owner held lands in excess of 30 s~tandard 
acres as on 6.4.1960. He filed a return as required by the Tamil N!!du 
Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 and an enquiry 
was initiated by the Authorised Officer concerned under Section 9(2)(b) 
D of the Act. Several objections raised by the appellant were rejected and 
the Authorised Officer came to th~ conclusion that the family of the 
appellant could be reckoned to be of five members between 6.4.1960 
and 2.10.1962 and thus the appellant was entitled to 30 standard acres; 
his wife and daughter however could hold IO and 7.71 standard acres 
respectively as stridhana. The appellant was asked to elect which lands 
E 
he wished to be included in his holding and state which lands should be 
treated as surplus. Feeling aggrieved by the said determination, the 
appellant preferred an appeal under Section 78(1) to the Land Tri-
bunal. The appellant contended (i) that the Authorised Officer had 
wrongly included the lands of his minor sons, unmarried daughter and 
wife gilled to them long before 1960; (ii) that subsequent to the filing of 
F 
the appeal, the Act was amended as a consequence whereof his rights 
and liabilities with regard to the fixation of ceiiing area were required to 
be worked out on the basis of the revised date of commencement of the 
Act i.e. 15.2.1970; notified date being 2.10.1970. It was also urged by 
the appellant that the lands of his eldest son Laxminarayanan could not 
be included in his holding. On those grounds amongst others relating to 
G 
the effect of subsequent transactions the appellant prayed that the mat-
ter ought to be remanded to the Authorised Tribunal for a de nova 
consideration. The appellant authority rejected all the contentions and 
dismissed the appeal, whereupon the appellant preferred a revision 
application before the High Court. Before the High Court his plea 
regarding subsequent transactions was confined to the 'documents 
H executed between 15th February 1970, the date of commencement of the 
358 
~. 
\ 
\ 
M.K. IYER v. LAND REFORMS 
359 
Act, and 2nd October 1970, the notified date; contentions regarding A 
other transactions were not pressed. The High Court accepted this 
contention and took the view that even in respect of proceedings which 
commenced prior to the coming into force of the Amending Act, an 
affected person can take advantage of the provisions contained in Sec-
tion 21A. The High Conrt held that while Section 2 of the Amending Act 
reduced the ceiling area to half, benefit was conferred by Section 21A 
B· 
and hence both the provisions had to be read together. On that reason-
ing the High Court opined that the three documents relating to subse-
quent transactions executed between the said date, could not be ignored 
in fixing the ceiling area unless it was found that the documents were 
executed to defeat the provisions of the Act, in which case the transac-
tions may be declared void under Section 22 of the Act. The High Court 
accordingly directed-the Authorised Officer to make further inquiries C 
regarding the three transactions in question and pass appropriate 
orders. The High Court rejected the other contentions. The appellant 
being aggrieved with the rejection of other points raised before the High 
Court has preferred this appeal by special leave. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: The proceedings in this case had started and concluded 
before the Authorised Officer long before the Amending Act saw the 
light of the day. Under Section 3(1) of the Amending Act, any action 
taken (including any order made, decision or direction given, pro-
E 
ceeding taken, etc.) under the provisions of Act before the date of 
publication of the Amending Act, can be continued and enforced after 
the said date in accordance with the provisions of the Act as if the 
Amending Act had not been passed. This is however, subject to sub-
section (2) which carves out an exception to sub-section (I) insofar 
as the reduction of the ceiling area fro111 30 standard acres to JS 
F 
sta

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.