Skip to content


The Authorised Officer (L. Refs.) Thanjavur, Now at Kumbakonam Vs. B.N. Abdul Rahiman Sahib - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.A. 157 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1982Mad338
ActsTamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 - Sections 3(22) and 9
AppellantThe Authorised Officer (L. Refs.) Thanjavur, Now at Kumbakonam
RespondentB.N. Abdul Rahiman Sahib
Excerpt:
- .....the learned government pleader appearing for the appellant submits that the order passed by the land tribunal in c.m.a. 143 of 1973 was under the original act of 1961 and not as per the amended act 17 of 1970. hence, according to the learned counsel, there is no question of resjudicata for once-over agitating the matter. no doubt the learned government pleader has mentioned that the observations of the tribunal and also the learned judge as regards the way in which the present notice has been issued are not called for. we have carefully gone through the orders of the learned judge and also the connected records. the area which the government wants to take over under the t. n. land reforms (fixation of ceiling on land) act is 112.99 ordinary acres. in respect of the very same lands,.....
Judgment:

Gokulakrishnan, O.C.J.

1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by Mohan J. in W, P. 4870 of 1978. This writ petition was filed for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Thanjavur, from taking any further proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 1961, as amended by Act 17 of 1970. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in C.M.A. No. 143 of 197 3 is conclusive and that the lands in question have not been proved to be agricultural lands coming under the definition of S. 3 (22) of the Act referred to above. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the present appeal has been filed by the Authorised Officer.

2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant submits that the order passed by the Land Tribunal in C.M.A. 143 of 1973 was under the original Act of 1961 and not as per the amended Act 17 of 1970. Hence, according to the learned counsel, there is no question of resjudicata for once-over agitating the matter. No doubt the learned Government Pleader has mentioned that the observations of the Tribunal and also the learned Judge as regards the way in which the present notice has been issued are not called for. We have carefully gone through the orders of the learned Judge and also the connected records. The area which the Government wants to take over under the T. N. Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act is 112.99 ordinary acres. In respect of the very same lands, the Tribunal has held on 19-10-1973, itself that the lands are not capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto, that these lands have been earmarked as house sites, that as per Exs. P-5 to P-7 these lands have been divided into plots for house sites and that the layout plans had been approved by the Director of Town Planning. The Tribunal definitely came to the conclusion that the lands in question will not come under the definition contemplated under S. 3 (22) of the T. N. Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act. No revision was filed against this order and thus the said order has become conclusive. After a lapse of nearly five years that is on 5-12-1978, a notice was issued declaring that these lands are agricultural lands and are all surplus lands in the hands of the respondents and that these lands have to be acquired. It is against this notice the writ of prohibition was filed by the respondent and the learned single Judge of our High Court has passed the order as mentioned above. It is clear from the facts stated above that the definition 'in S. 3 (22) of the Act remains the same after the amendment by Act 17 of 1970. Thus the finding of the Tribunal that these lands are not agricultural lands has become conclusive and has not been set aside by any competent authority. There is al so no allegation that these lands have been put to agricultural use subsequent to the order passed by the Tribunal on 19-10-1973. The fact that these lands have been treated as house sites is evidenced by the Exs. P-5 to P-7 and also from the fact that the layout plans have been approved by the Director of Town Planning. Thus there is overwhelming evidence to prove that these are all house sites and not lands used for agricultural purposes. It is clear from S. 3 (22) of the Act that house sites are definitely excluded from the definition of land in that section: From these facts we are convinced that the writ petition has been correctly allowed and we do not find any miscarriage of justice or any point to admit the writ appeal. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed

3. Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //