On Civil Revision before the High Court of Madras under Section 83 of the Act, a learned single Judge took the view that 3 acres and 66 cents of land sold by the family on 16 6 1962 was perhaps a genuine sale and perhaps excludible for the purpose of determining the ceiling limit.
Finding that the appellants had number been given the opportunity to satisfy the companycerned authorities about the genuineness of the sale dated 16 6 1962, the High Court found that there was a material irregularity in the order which needed to be companyrected.
By themselves they companystituted a family, the family is known as in Section 3 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling on Land Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The authorised officer Land Reforms Mayuram companyputed the holding of the family ignoring claim of the appellants for deduction on account of a genuine sale.
The holding of the family had to be determined, under the provisions of the Act, as on 6 4 1960.
For the purpose the Civil Revision Petition was partly allowed and the subject matter was remitted to the file of the Land Tribunal Subordinate Judge Mayuram for fresh companysideration in the light of the observations made by the learned single Judge of the High Court.
There was another limb of the case which went against the appellants and which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
Their appeal to the Land Tribunal was futile exercise.
The first appellant is the mother and the remaining two appellants are her sons.
