N.S. Ramaswami, J.
1. The Revision Petition is by the landowner whose appeal to the Land Tribunal under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, (Madras Act LVIII of 1961) has been dismissed. The revision petitioner claimed exemption in respect of 9.17 ordinary acres of land on the ground that the same is a grazing land. This has been disallowed by the Authorised Officer as Section 74 of the Act has been deleted by the Amending Act XLI of 1971. The revision petitioner also claimed that he had settled the land measuring 13.97 ordinary acres on his nephew by a registered settlement deed dated 26th October, 1971 and that therefore, that land also should not be taken into account in fixing his ceiling area. The Authorised Officer rejected this claim also as the revision petitioner did not produce any evidence in that regard. The appeal to the Land Tribunal having failed this revision petition is filed.
2. The Authorised Officer and the Tribunal have overlooked the fact that Section 74 has been deleted by Act XLI of 1971 only prospectively and such deletion has no retrospective effect. The, ceiling; area of the revision petitioner has to be determined by the Authorised Officer as on 15th February, 1970, the relevant date under Act XVII of 1970. Under Act XLI of 1971 which deleted Section 74 of the Principal Act, it is specifically stated in Section 3 thereof that, on and from the date specified in the notification issued under sub-Section (2) of Section 1 (of the Amending Act XLI of 1971), the Principal Act shall have effect as if Section 74, had been omitted. The notification under sub-Section (2) of Section 1 of Act XLI of 1971 had been made on 15th , January, 1972. Therefore, the deletion of Section 74 takes effect only from that date. In any event, there is no question of Section 74 not being in the picture, as on 15th February, 1970, the relevant date in the present proceedings. As the Authorised Officer is determining the ceiling area of the revision petitioner as on 15th February, 1970, he has, necessarily to proceed on the basis that Section; 74 is also on the statute book. That means as far as the present proceedings are concerned, the revision petitioner is entitled to claim exemption in respect of grazing lands. It might be open to the Authorised Officer to initiate separate proceedings in view of the amended provision contained in Act XLI of 1971 taking away the exemption under Section 74. But, as far as the present proceedings are concerned, I have, necessarily, to hold that under Section 74 the revision petitioner is entitled to the exemption claimed.
3. However, the revision petitioner cannot succeed in respect of 13.97 ordinary acres said to have been settled on the nephew by a document dated 26th October, 1971. Though the reason given by the Authorised Officer and the Tribunal below that they are disallowing the claim of the revision petitioner because no evidence about the settlement had been produced does not appear to be sound, the revision petitioner has, necessarily, to fail because of the Amending Act XXXII of 1974. Under this Act, the Original Section 23 of the Principal Act has been substituted by a new Section. Under the new Section all such transfers as in the present case, should be treated as if no such transfer had taken place. This provision has retrospective effect and it is fairly conceded by Mr. R.G. Rajan, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, that in view of the Amending Act XXXII of 1974. the settlement deed cannot be valid.
4. The result is the revision petition is partly allowed as indicated above. Parties to bear their respective costs.