LexV. GOPAL REDDIAR (DEAD) BY L.R. AND ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
_J J_ i . -< V. GOPAL REDDIAR (DEAD) BY L.R. AND ANR. ETC. A v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. ETC. FEBRUARY 24, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.) B Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961-Section 23-Tamil Nadu Land Refonns (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 197(}-Section 3(2)-/nterpretation of-Fixation of land hold- ing--Proceedings commenced under Principal Act-Not concluded before C Reduction Act came into force-Method of calculation of ceiling-Transfer of land to any educational institution•between 5-2-1970 and 2-10-197(}-Valid transfer to be excluded from holding of any person-Benefit of section 21-A can be claimed. The appellants held agricultural lands in excess of the ceiling limit D on 6-4-1960, the date of commencement of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act; 1961. Under Section S of the Act, a ceiling of 30 standard acres was fixed on land holding in the case of a family. An additional 10 standard acres was the ceiling on holding of stridhana land. Within 90 days of the notified date, every person holding E in excess of the ceiling area was required to furnish to the Authorised Officer a return in respect of his .land. The notified date under the Principal Act was 2-10-1962. The Authorised Officer was required to prepare a draft statement in respect of a person's holding in excess of the ceiling limit. If a person held land in excess of the ceiling limit, any sale of land, effected by him after the notified date but before the publication of the final statement, could not be taken into account while considering his holding for the purpose of the ceiling limit. The appellant effected sale transactions in respect of certain lands held by him between 3-7-1963 and 17-7-1964 i.e. after the notified date. On 28-7-1965, a draft statement was published in respect of the appellant's lands. The appellant objected to the draft statement. While the proceed- F G ings were pending under the Principal Act, the Tamil Na~u Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970 came into force. The date of H 351 352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R. A commencement of the Reduction Act was 15-2-1970 and the notified date was 2-10-1970. Under the Reduction Act, the ceiling on land in the case of a family was reduced to 15 standard acres. The appellant claimed that the transactions of sale effected between 3-7-1963 and 17-7-1964 being prior to the commencement of the Reduction B Act should be excluded from their holding for the purpose of determining the now reduced ceiling limit under the pending proceedings. The claim was rejected. An order was passed asking the appellants to surrender 30.30 standard acres from out of their holding as surplus. The appellants challenged the order in an appeal before the Land Tribunal. The Tribunal C confirmed the order of the Authorised Officer and dismissed the appeal. In revision, the High Court directed a fresh enquiry to be held by the Authorised Officer. The Authorised Officer was directed to consider whether the sale transaction of the appellants before the notified date of 2-10- 1970 were bona fide transactions or not. D The Authorised officer held that the transactions of sale after 6-4- E 1960 will have to be ignored for the purpose of the pending proceedings. He determined the surplus land accordingly. The Land Tribunal in appeal ~ upheld the order. The revision petition filed against the order was dis- missed by the High Court. Hence these appeals. The appellant contended that since the notified date now was 2-10- 1970, transactions of sale between 2-10-1970 and the date of the publication of the final statement alone had to be ignored for the purpose of determin- ing the ceiling of 15 standard acres under the amended principal Act. F The respondent submitted that as a result of Section 3(2) of the ~. Reduction Act, the pending proceedings under the old Act had to be continued save and except that the ceiling would be reduced. Hence trans- ---,__ actions of sale after 2-10-1962 which were required to be ignored under the unamended section 23 of the Principal Act wocld also have to be ignored G under the Principal Act as modified by the Reduction Act in view of Section 3(1). Dismissing the appeal, this Court ,.,. HELD : 1.1 In a case where a proceeding under the Tamil Nadu Land H Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 had commen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.