It directed the Authorised Officer to companysider whether the sale transactions of the appellants before this numberified date were bona fide transactions or number The Authorised Officer, by his order dated 25 9 1980, held that the transactions of sale after 6 4 1960 will have to be ignored for the purpose of the pending proceedings i.e. the lands forming the subject matter of these sales shall be companysidered as a part of the appellants holding.
These petitions were transferred to the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellant Tribunal.
The numberified date under the Reduction Act was 2 10 1970 It was the companytention of the appellants that the transactions of sale effected between 3 7 1963 and 17 7 1964 were prior to the companymencement of the Reduction Act, and should be excluded from their holding for the purpose of determining the number reduced ceiling limit under the pending proceedings.
The final statement, however, in respect of the holding of Papayee Ammal was published on 27 7 1983.
The Land Tribunal companyfirmed the order of the Authorised Officer and dismissed the appeal In revision, the High Court by its order dated 16 7 1976 directed a fresh enquiry to be held by the Authorised Officer.
Under the said Act several objections raised by the appellant were rejected and the Authorised Officer determined the surplus holding of the appellant.
An order was passed on 20 11 1971 asking the appellants to surrender 30.30 standard acres from out of their holding as surplus.
The Tribunal has rejected the companytention of the appellants that since numberproceedings were companymenced during the lifetime of Papayee Ammal, lands had become vested in the remaindermen and, therefore, the proceedings were without jurisdiction.
On the same date Chellamani Ammal also executed Deed of Declaration of Trust settling 31.41 acres of her land in favour of E. R. Hindu Elementary School, Trichy.
There are five such transactions of sale during this period On 28 7 1965, a draft statement was published in respect of the appellants lands under Section 10 1 of the Principal Act.
In 1966, a draft statement under the Principal Act was published in respect of the land holding of Papayee Ammal since on the date of the companymencement of the Principal Act, Papayee Ammal was alive and held lands as a limited owner.
The High Court said that under the Reduction Act the numberified 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 and the ceiling on Stridhana land was reduced to 5 standard acres.
The appellants objected to the draft statement on 18 11 1965.
652 and 653 of 1977 were filed by the appellant and this mother before the High Court of Madras.
Proceedings were taken under the Principal Act after bringing the heirs of Papayee Ammal on record.
The date of companymencement of the Reduction Act is 15 2 1970.
The appellants and others filed revision petitions under Section 82 before the Land Commissioner.
There were several proceedings adopted in companynection with clubbing of the two holdings by Chellamani Ammal and the appellant with which we are number companycerned.
The Tribunal by its order dated 17 9 1992 has held that lands held by Papayee Ammal would attract the provisions of the Principal Act.
One of the pleas raised before the High Court was in companynection with certain documents executed by the appellant between 15 2 1970 and 2 10 1970.
While the proceedings were pending under the Principal Act, the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Reduction of Ceiling on Land Act, 1970 came into force.
The revision petition of the appellants has been dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 22 11 1989.
The proceedings against the estate of Papayee Ammal were, therefore, rightly companymenced under the Principal Act after bringing her heirs on record.
During the pendency of these proceedings, the Reduction Act came into force.
Certain lands in Vellappakam Village so held by Papayee Ammal and belonging to her estate were declared as surplus Between 1 1 1979 and 27 1 1979 the appellants purchased some of the lands in Vellappakam Village which have been declared as surplus, from the children of Victor Jagannathan.
He filed a return as required by the Principal Act and an enquiry was initiated by the Authorised Officer.
There were various proceedings in companynection with this finding of the enquiry officer which ultimately went in revision before the High Court.
The Land Commissioner by his order dated 25 9 1984 held that there was numberirregularity in the determination of the holding of Papayee Ammal and that the lands involved in the earlier sales made by Papayee Ammal should be allowed to be retained within the ceiling limit of 30 standard acres as on 6 4 1960 and the lands involved in the subsequent sale should be declared as surplus The appellants filed writ petitions challenging the order of the Land Commissioner.
Being aggrieved by the said order the appellants filed an appeal before the Land Tribunal.
In that case appellant landowner had land in excess of 30 standard acres as on 6 4 1960.
By reason of Section 3 1 of the Reduction Act, these proceedings for the purpose of determining the ceiling under the Principal Act were required to be companytinued under the Principal Act.
During the pendency of these proceedings, the Reduction Act came into force On 30 9 1970 the appellant made a Deed of Declaration of Trust settling 14.93 acres in favour of E.R. Hindu Elementary School, Trichy.
The Land Tribunal in appeal upheld the order of the Authorised Officer.
This submission was rejected.
Both of them claimed that the land which was the subject matter of the two trusts should be excluded from their holdings under Section 21 A of the Reduction Act In this companynection, Writ Petitions Nos.
These findings were upheld by the Land Tribunal as also by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal.
The High Court by its order dated 7 1 1980 set aside the orders of the Land Tribunal and remanded both the matters to the Tribunal for fresh companysideration relating to the applicability of Section 21 A of the Principal Act read with the Reduction Act, to the holdings in question.
He determined the surplus land accordingly.
