The said order of the authorised officer was upheld in revision by the Land Commissioner but on a writ petition filed by the respondent the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court set aside the said order on the view that under Section 50 the authorised officer companyld number reopen an assessment that has been finalised and determined as per Schedule III except on the ground of a clerical or arithmetical mistake and that a bona fide mistake in regard to any entry cannot take within its amplitude companyrection of mistakes on merits.
Subsequently it was brought to the numberice of the authorised officer that an extent of 3.67 acres of the said surplus land was lying waste companytinuously for five years prior to the date of the publication of the numberification under Section 18 1 of the said Act and on that basis the authorised officer, exercising the power under Section 50 9 of the Act, reduced the amount of companypensation to Rs 4387.68p on the view that a bona fide mistake had been companymitted in the determination of the companypensation earlier.
In accordance with the said determination the final assessment roll under Section 50 9 of the Act was published on 5 6 1974.
An extent of 8.49 acres of land in Siramel Kudi Village, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District was declared as surplus and the amount of companypensation for the same was determined as Rs 9353.04p.
In taking the said view the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on an earlier judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court in R.V. Appaswamy v. Authorised Officer Land Reforms Kovilpattil.
This appeal arises out of proceedings taken under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling on Land Act, 1961.
