The High Court companysidered the provisions of Section 21 A which came into the Statute by Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1970 with effect from 15th February, 1970, as well as Section 3 1 and 3 2 of the said Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1970 and came to the companyclusion that the proceedings in the present case having been initiated under the Principal Act the same has to be companytinued and companycluded thereunder and, as such Section 21 A which was brought into the Statute by Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Reduction of Ceiling on Land , Act 1970 Act XVII of 1970 will have numberapplication.
The appellant land owner filed objection to the said draft statement companytending inter alia that two settlement deeds have been executed in favour of two minor sons on 28.4.1970 and on 2.5.1970 and those transfers are valid under Section 21 A of the Act, and as such they should be excluded from the companyputation of the ceiling surplus in the hands of the appellant and on such exclusion the appellant cannot be said to have any excess land in his possession.
The appellant challenged the said order of the authorised officer by filing a Revision before Land Commissioner who ultimately remanded the matter to the authorised officer for re disposal.
A proceeding under the Act was initiated by the authorised officer who came to the companyclusion that the appellant was in possession of 7.01 standard acres as surplus land, over and above the permitted ceiling area of 30 standard acres.
After the matter came back on remand the authorised officer prepared a revised draft statement indicating therein that the total surplus land in possession of the appellant companyes to 19.28 standard acres.
The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Land Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as The Act came into force on 5.4.1960.
3688 of 1982 having negatived the companytention of the appellant and having dismissed the Revision, the present appeal has been preferred.
The appellant then preferred a Revision to the High Court and the High Court by the impugned judgment in C.W.P No.
The authorised officer, however rejected the said objection and the matter being carried in an appeal, the appeal was also dismissed.
It may be stated that subsequent acquisition made by the appellant was taken into companysideration for companyputing the surplus land.
