LexM. RAMAKRISHNAN versus STATE OF MADRAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B 396 M. RAMAKRISHNAN v. STATE OF MADRAS August 28, 1979 [A. C. GUPTA AND E. S. VENKATARAM!AH, J}.] Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceilings on Land) Act 1961-Ss. 3 (42), 5 (4)(a)-Scope oi-"Stridhana land"-Whether includes land inherit- ed by female or acquired by her as bequest after the date of commencement of the Act. C The Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 by S. 3 ( 42) defined '~tridhana land'' as any land held on the date of tho commencement of the Act (April 6, 1960) by any female member of a family in her own name, and S. 5 (4)(a) of the Act enabled such a female meniber to bold, in addition to the extent of land whic!-, the family is entitled to bold, stridhana land not exceeding 10 standard acres. D The mother of the appellant had bequeathed to the appellant and his wife E F G B certain agricultural lands by a will. The appellant being married 9n June 29, 1960 and his mother having died on April 20, 1962 i.e. after the Act ca.me into force, the Authorised Officer passed orders treating the lands bequeatl:i<d in favour of the appellant's wife as part of the holdings of the family consist- ing of the appellant and his wife, and determined the extent of the surplus. land to be surrendered. .-- The appellant's contention in his appeai under S. 78 of the Act before the Land Tribunal, that the land which was bequeat!-,ed in favour of his wife by his mother under the will \Vas stridhana land, waS accepted by it and the Land Tribunal allowed the wife of the appellant to retain the land as stridhana land under S. 5 (4)(a) of the Act an.d remitted back the case to the Authorised Officer for making a fresh determination of the surplus extent of the land. The respondent's revision petition under S. 83- of the Act was allowed, the High Court holding that the land held by the wife was not 'stridhana land' as defined under S. 3 (42) of the Act, and could not be treated as such while detefmining the surplus land. On the question whether the land in question was 'stridhana: land' and could be treated as such under S. 5 ( 4) of the Act while determining the sur- plus land. HEID : (I) The Higb Court was right in holding that S. 5 ( 4) of the Act was not applicable to the land in question. [403 Fl (2) The expression "stridhana land" used in S. 5 (4) (a) has been g!v'* a restricted meaning by S. 3 ( 42) of the Act which defines it as any land field on the date of the commencement of the Act by any female member of j family in her o.wu name. [401C] • • M. RAMAKRISHNAN v. MADRAS (Venkataramiah, /.) 397 In the instant caso on the dote of the commencement of the Act i.e. April 6 1960 the wife was not the owner of the land in question. She· acquired title to it on April 20, 1962 on the death of the tesiatrix her mother. The appellant cannot therefore claim any benefit under s. 5 (4)(a) of the Act. [401C] ' (3) S. 21 of the Act under which the land in question becomes liable to be included in the holding of the appellant for purposes of determination of the surplus land does not make any difference between stridhana property ot a female ~quired after the commencement of the Act ·by inheritance or bequest from any person and any other pro~erty held by her family. [401D] _ ( 4) A reading of the definition of the expression "stridhana land" in S. 3 (42) of th~ Act and the provisions of S. 5(4) of the Act, indicate that the State Legislature intended to extend the concession available under S. 5 ( 4) of the •Act only to the land held by a female on the date of the commence- ment of the Act and not to land acquired by her thereafter. [401E] (5) The object of the legislation is the acquisition of agricultural land in excess of the ceiling area and distribution of the same amongst the landless among the rural population. If the construction urged by the appellant is placed on S. 21 ol the Act, the very object of the statute would be defeated. There is also no room for construing S. 5 ( 4) (a) of the Act as being applicable to agricul.utral land acquired by a female even after the commencement of the Act. [401G, F] (6) If the Legis!ature intended that lands acquired by way of inheritance or bequest by a female on or after the commencement of the Act should also be dealt with in accordance with S. 5(4), it would have defined the expression "stridhana land" without the words "on the date of the commencement ·Of this Act." [401Hj
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.