Madras High Court
Pennarasi (Died) vs The Land Commissioner on 4 August, 2021
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011 and M.P.No.1/2011 in both
W.As.
W.A.No.1219/2011 :
1. Pennarasi (died)
2. Tamilarasi
3. Bhuvaneshwari
4. Thiruvenkadasami
5. Tamilselvan
6. K.Ramadevi
7. K.Gangaparameshwari ... Appellants
(Appellants 2 to 7 were substituted in the place of
deceased sole appellant vide order dated 13.10.2014
made in M.P.No.1/2014 in W.A.No.1219/2011)
-vs-
1. The Land Commissioner,
Land Reforms, Chennai-5.
2. Land Tribunal,
Land Reforms, Chennai-5.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms, Madurai. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 07.06.2011 made in W.P.No.8603/2004 by a
learned Single Judge of this Court.
W.A.No.1220/2011 :
1. Veluthai
2. Kuzhanthai Velayutha Balasubramanian
3. M.Jeyakumar
4. Visalakshi ... Appellants
-vs-
1. The Land Commissioner,
Land Reforms, Chennai-5.
2. Land Tribunal,
Land Reforms, Chennai-5.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms, Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 07.06.2011 made in W.P.No.8609/2004 by a
learned Single Judge of this Court.
In both W.As.
For Appellants :Mr.Suresh Kumar
for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates
For respondents : Mr.T.Arunkumar
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA.J)
These Writ Appeals have been filed against the Common Order
dated 07.06.2011 made in W.P.No.8603/2004 and
W.P.No.8609/2004, by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. The brief facts of the case in W.A.No.1219/2011 is as
follows:
(a) One Kandasamy Gounder married Nachammal,
Muthammal and Chellammal. Nachiammal died without any issue.
Thereafter, Muthammal and her son also died. Subsequently,
Chellammal, 3rd wife alone was alive and through the 3rd wife
Chellammal, one daughter by name Valliammal was born to
Kandasamy Gounder. She married S.Meganatha Sundaraswamy
Gounder to whom Pennarasi, the deceased 1st appellant was born. The
said S.Meganatha Sundaraswamy Gounder and his daughter Pennarasi
were holding the following acres of lands in Coimbatore and Madurai
District on 06.04.1960:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011
Ordinary acres Std. Acres
Sri.S.Meganathasundarasami Gounder 172.55 54.066
Section I Property
Smt.Pennarasi
d30.Sri S.Meganathasundarasami
Gounder (unmarried on 6.4.1960
Sec.VI Property 142.06 37.517
In view of the fact that Sections I and VI properties were more
than the ceiling area of 30.000 and 10.000 standard acres
respectively, a Draft Statement under Section 10(1) was published in
the Fort St. George Gazette dated 27.4.1966. A copy of the Draft
Statement u/s.10(1) together with No.7 notice were sent to
Sri.S.Meganathasundarasami Gounder and Smt.Pennarasi for service.
They were served on 29.5.1966 and 15.8.1966 respectively.
Thereafter, the deceased 1st appellant's father
S.Meganathasundarasami Gounder filed an objection on 26.07.1966 to
the Draft 10(1) Statement, requesting to grant exemption for the
entire extent of 46.26 acres in S.Nos.135/1 and 157/1 of Maivadi
Village under Section 74 of the Madras Land Reforms Act, 1961. It is
also the claim of the Meganathasundarasami Gounder that he had no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011
right over the lands notified as surplus in the holdings of
Smt.Pennarasi in Sec.VI property as they were given to her by his
mother-in-law as sreedhana lands. Similarly, the deceased 1st
appellant Pennarasi also filed an objection to the draft 10(1) statement
through her counsel on 18.9.1966 requesting to include her
agricultural holdings with the unit of her husband in Palani Taluk and to
declare the surplus lands in her holdings along with her husband's
holdings in Madurai District.
(b) Thereafter, Meganathasundarasami was asked to appear
for the enquiry on 20.08.1966 and accordingly, he appeared on the
said date with a request to grant exemption under Section 74 of the
Act, for the extent of 46.26 acres in S.Nos.135/1 and 157/1 of Maivadi
Village, Udumalpet Taluk and he was granted exemption under Section
74 of the Act for an extent of 50.00 ordinary acres or 12.500 standard
acres for the purpose of grazing. Since there is no provision in the
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') for the grant of exemption for
more than 50 acres under Section 74 of the Act, the matter was closed
and his request under Section 27 of the Madras Land Reforms Act, for
livestock breedings was also rejected by the Madras Land Board by
order dated 8.12.1965.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011
( c) So far as the claim of Pennarasi was concerned, she was
asked to appear on 4.10.1966 and accordingly, she appeared through
her Counsel on 4.10.1966 with a request to include her hoardings with
her husband's holdings at Palani Taluk, Madurai District. Since the said
Pennarasi was unmarried on 06.04.1960 and she was a member of her
father's family, her request was rejected and thereafter, it was found
that there was a surplus 11.566 standard acres of land in the holdings
of Sri.S.Meganathasundarasami Gounder and 27.517 standard acres of
land in the holdings of Smt.Pennarasi. Accordingly, the Authorized
Officer passed an order dated 13.02.1967.
(d) As against the order dated 13.02.1967 passed by the
Authorized Officer, a revision was filed by them. The Land
Commissioner took up the matter. The contentions raised before the
Land Commissioner were as follows:
Contention (1) : That exemption and exclusion for the following
lands are granted, then there will be no surplus in her holding:
KOTTAITHURAIPATTI VILLAGE
Sl.No. S.No. Extent
1. 490/1A 4.54 Acres Fuel Trees
2. 490/1 5.06 Acres Fuel Trees
3. 501/2B 5.75 Acres Fuel Trees
4. 493/1 2.66 Acres Coconut Trees
5. 499/2A 0.56 acres
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011
Sl.No. S.No. Extent
6. 500/1 0.35 Acres Tank
7. 491/3 2.50 Acres Tank
8. 492/2 3.97 Acres Tank
9. 493/3 6.96 Acres Tank
MELKARAIPATTI VILLAGE
Sl.No. S.No. Extent
1 393 3.12 Acres Rocky
2 395 2.53 Acres Rocky
3 397 1.41 Acres 1 Not a land as defined u/s.3(22) of the Act
4 398/1 11.69 Acres ''
5. 702/2 0.30 Acres ''
6 708/2 7.86 Acres – Unfit for agricultural use
7 384/1 12.17 Acres Rocky
8. 707/1B 0.87 Acres Rocky
Contention II : that the following lands do not belong to
Tmt.Pennarasi and they belonged to Chellammal, has to be deleted:
KOTTAITHURAI VILLAGE
Sl.No. S.No. Extent
1. 466/3 9.95 Acres
2. 474 4.31 Acres
3. 476/1 2.86 Acres
4. 498/2 22.70 Acres
5. 497 10.51 Acres
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011
Sl.No. S.No. Extent
Total 50.38 Acres
RAJAMPATTY VILLAGE
Sl.No. S.No. Extent
1. 5 2.26 Acres
2. 14/1 3.78 Acres
Total 6.04 Acres
When the revision was filed before the Land Commissioner,
Chepauk, Chennai-5 taking up two contentions, namely, (a) exemption
and exclusion for fuel trees and coconut trees, rocky, land unfit for
agricultural purpose are also granted, then there would be no surplus
in her holdings and (b) that the lands standing in the name of
Chellammal, grandmother of Pennarasi are also considered on the
basis of the decree and judgment passed by the civil court in
O.S.No.935/1971 dated 24.11.1972 and the patta issued by the
revenue authorities in some of the survey numbers, these lands ought
to be deleted.
(e) The Land Commissioner finding no merit on either of the
contentions raised rejected the revision as untenable. One of the
reasons cited to reject the contention is that when the claimants are
entitled to get exemption only to the maximum extent of 50 acres that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011
was granted. Therefore, the first contention was found to be
meritless. Coming to the second contention that Chellammal was able
to get decree and judgment in O.S.No.935/1971 dated 24.11.1972
before the District Munsif Court, Palani, it was held that by virtue of
Section 23 of the Act, any alienation or transfer effected on or after
the notified date and before the publication of a notification under sub-
section (1) of section 18 shall be void.
(f) In the present case, since the said Chellammal,
grandmother of Pennarasi got a decree only on 24.11.1972 in
O.S.No.935/1971, the said finding also could not be found fault with.
Inasmuch as, the learned Commissioner has rightly appreciated the
legality under Section 23 of the Act while dealing with the second
contention. However, the matter was taken up before the Land
Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Madras-600 004 in M.P.80/2001 in
SRP.26/2001 and by order dated 18.10.2001, the Tamil Nadu Land
Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal also confirmed the order passed by
the Land Commissioner in Revision and thereafter, the appellant took
up the matter before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011
(g) The learned Single Judge considering the claim made by
the 1st appellant came to the conclusion that the claim of the appellant
that the question of exemption of the lands was never raised at the
time of the earlier enquiry and the saplings were newly planted with a
view to get over the Ceiling fixed under the Act and the findings
recorded by the revisional authority do not call for any interference.
Against which the present Writ Appeal has been filed.
3. During the pendency of the present Writ Appeal, since the
1st appellant died, her legal representatives were substituted in her
place.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants heavily contended that
when the deceased 1st appellant's grandmother Chellammal was
having 56 acres of land out of 142.06 acres belonging to Kandasamy,
indeed the rest of the extent of the land, namely, 86.06 acres of the
land will be alone with Pennarasi. Explaining further, learned Counsel
for the appellants stated that originally Kandasamy Gounder had
142.06 acres of land. Although he married three wives, namely,
Nachammal, Muthammal and Chellammal, Nachammal died without
any issue whereas Muthammal although had a son, both of them died
before 1940. Therefore, the third wife survived and she gave birth to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011
a only daughter Valliammal who also has given birth to the present
deceased 1st appellant Pennarasi. Hence, as a matter of fact, when
Chellammal, grandmother of Pennarasi was in possession of 56 acres
of land out of 142.06 acres, after the death of her mother Valliammal
who predeceased Chellammal, she is entitled to have 86.06 acres
and then 56 acres of land cannot be put together in the holdings of
Pennarasi. If the lands belonging to Chellammal to the extent of 56
acres are clubbed with Pennarasi, the appellants will be put to huge
prejudice.
5. Admittedly, Chellammal filed a suit in O.S.No.935/1971
before the District Munsif Court, Palani and also got a decree and
judgment dated 24.11.1972. Therefore, the doubt and suspicion
raised by the respondents is that the decree and judgment obtained by
Chellammal grandmother of the deceased 1st appellant cannot be
included is unjustified and far from acceptance. But when we
specifically posed a question to the learned Counsel for the appellants
to accept his contention whether the said Chellammal has been issued
with any revenue patta by competent officers to the extent of 56 acres
of land, he replied to us in negative stating that although repeated
efforts were taken they were unable to produce that clearly shows that
if Chellammal grandmother of Pennarasi was issued with patta to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011
extent of 56 acres of lands that could have been placed before us or
could have been placed before the revenue authorities or before the
learned Appellate Tribunal which has not been done.
6. Surprisingly, even after listing the case before the
authorized officer, the revenue authority and also the Special Tribunal,
and the learned Single Judge of this Court and even before us, not
producing the patta to the extent of 56 acres clearly shows that there
is no patta issued and even though the appellants are ready to
produce any patta in the name of Chellammal the decree and
judgment passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.935/1971 are also hit by
Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on
Land) Act, 1961 which is extracted as follows for quicker reference:
''[23. Transfer or sub-division made or effected
before the publication of notification under sub-section (1)
of Section 18:- (1) Subject to the provisions of section 20
for the purpose of fixing, for the first time (after the date
of the commencement of this Act], the ceiling area of any
person holding land on the date of the commencement of
this Act in excess of [15 standard acres]--
(a) any transfer, whether by sale (including sale in
execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of an
award or order of any other lawful authority) or by gift
(other than gift made in contemplation of death),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011
exchange, surrender, settlement or otherwise; or
(b) any sub-division (including sub-division by a
decree or order of a Civil Court or any other lawful
authority) whether by partition or otherwise,
effected on or after the notified dated and before
the publication of a notification under sub-section (1) of
section 18 shall be, and shall be deemed always to have
them, void and accordingly, the authorized officer shall
calculate the ceiling area of such person as if no such
transfer or sub-division had taken place.
Explanation—This sub-section shall, on and from the
15th day of February 1970, have effect as if for the figures
and words ''30 standard acres'', the figures and words ''15
standard acres'' had been substituted.
(2) It shall be the duty of the authorized officer to
include the land so transferred or sub-divided, within the
ceiling area of the transferor or the person who held the
land immediately before such sub-division, as the case
may be, as if no such transfer or sub-division had taken
place.]''
A perusal of the above provision and the argument
advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants that
the deceased 1st appellant herein is the only owner of the
land to the extent of 56 acres has to be simply repealed
for the reason that the decree and judgment passed in
O.S.No.935/1971 dated 24.11.1972 are clearly and
explicitly hit by Section 23 of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011
Therefore, we are unable to find any infirmity or error in the of the
order passed by the revenue authority and the learned Single Judge.
7. Insofar as the W.A.No.1220/2011 is concerned, the
appellants are Mrs.Veluthai and her daughter and sons. By the
impugned order dated 13.09.2000, the 1st respondent refused to
entertain the revision petition under Section 82 of the Tamil Nadu
Land Reforms (FCL) Act stating that the holdings of the family will be
determined only as on 06.04.1960, namely, the commencement of the
original Act and at that time since all the land owners were minors,
they will form part of the original family unit. Since they cannot have
a separate unit in the ancestral property, they cannot be assessed as
a separate unit. The correct extent of the land held by Pennarasi
daughter of Valliyammal was 142.06 equivalent to 37.517 standard
acres. It was also stated that one of these issues was raised at the
time of enquiry under Section 10(5). Since the writ petitioner herself
asked for exemption under Section 74 to an extent of 50 acres at the
stage of enquiry proceedings and also got the same, no such
exemption was pleaded at that time. Further, the usage on the
notified date 06.04.1960 is relevant and the lands are capable of being
brought under cultivation and the fact that there was coconut thope
cannot be considered as they were only new saplings and hence, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011
exemption on that ground also cannot be accepted. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge while confirming the order of the 1st respondent,
namely, the Land Commissioner, Land Reforms, Chennai-5 in
W.P.No.8609/2004 by a Common Order, dismissed the same in which
we do not find any infirmity or illegality to interfere with the same.
8. In the result, both these Writ Appeals fail and the same
are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.
(T.R.J.,) (V.S.G.J.,)
04.08.2021
tsi
To
1. The Land Commissioner,
Land Reforms, Chennai-5.
2. Land Tribunal,
Land Reforms, Chennai-5.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2011
T.RAJA, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
tsi
W.A.Nos.1219 and 1220/2011
04.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
