[ 1643 ]

Registered with the Registrar

of Newspapers for India

under No. 10410

Registered No. PY/44/2021-23

Amflºƒˆ \VWÈ ∂´E>µ

La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry

The Gazette of Puducherry

PART - I

E≈©A ÿkπX|

EXTRAORDINAIRE

EXTRAORDINARY

∂]ÔV´D ÿ√u≈

Publiée par

Published by

ÿkπX|

Autorité

Authority

®ı

Amflºƒˆ

sBVw¬˛wÁ\

2022 }

ÿƒ©¶D√Ï |

8 {

No.

124

Poudouchéry

Jeudi

8

Septembre

2022 (17 Bhadra 1944)

No.

Puducherry

Thursday

8th

September

2022

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE) SOUTH, VILLIANUR

No. 903/DCRS/LR/B2/2022-23/2745.

Villianur, dated 05th September 2022.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (LAND REFORMS)

Present : Thiru K. Muralidharan,

Deputy Collector (Revenue) South-cum-Authorised Officer

(Land Reforms).

Read

: 1. Publication of Notification under section 11 in the Extraordinary

Gazette No. 44, dated 09-03-1978.

2. Order, dated 29-08-1979 in LTCMA No. 17 of 1979 in the Court

of the Principal Sub-Judge at Pondicherry.

3. Order, dated 20-11-1980 in CRP.No. 37461/80 of the Madras

High Court.

4. Opinion of the Law Department, Puducherry vide I.D.Note.

No. 178/Adv./2015. LD., dated 23-07-2015.

5. Order, dated 04-07-2022 of the High Court of Judicature at

Madras in Writ Petitions W.P.Nos. 15446, 15323 and 15499

of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos. 14593, 14489 and 14666 of 2022.

6. I.D.Note, dated 21-08-2022 of the Secretary (Revenue)-cum-

Land Commissioner.

1644

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[ PART-I

1644

ORDER

Whereas, Land Reforms Proceedings had been initiated to acquire surplus

land holdings situated at Embalam and Korkadu Revenue Villages in Bahour Taluk,

in repsect of Thiru Muthuvenkatapathy Reddiyar, son of Sundara Reddiyar under

the Puducherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973.

2. And whereas, on scrutiny of the revenue records, it has been ascertained

that Thiru Muthuvenkatapathy Reddiyar, son of Sundara Reddiyar, is holding land

in excess of the ceiling limit in Embalam and Korkadu Revenue Villages, Bahour

Taluk as prescribed under the Puducherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on

Land) Act, 1973. The Authorised Officer after completing all the procedures required

under the Land Reforms Act, 1973 published final statement under section 11 of

the Act in the Extraordinary Gazette vide No. 44, dated 09-03-1978 declaring that

the land to an extent of 13-51-45 Ha. equivalent to 7.2383 Std. Hec. in Embalam and

Korkadu Revenue Villages were found surplus.

3. And whereas, aggrieved by the orders of the Authorised Officer, the

assessee had preferred an appeal before the Land Tribunal in LTCMA No. 17/78

and the Land Tribunal vide its order, dated 29-08-1979 has allowed the appeal and

set aside the orders of the Authorised Officer as follows:

“ .... three major sons who were entitled to a share prior to the appointed

date had their share in the total land holdings of the Undivided Hindu Joint Family.

The Authorised Officer ought to have taken into account only 1/4th of the total land

holdings on the name of the appellant who is the kartha of the family. If that is so,

the total Std. Hecs. and it is admittedly lesser than the ceiling limit of 6 Std. Hecs.

Hence, the appeal is allowed the order of the learned Authorised Officer is set aside

with costs .... ”

4. And whereas, against the order of the Land Tribunal in LTCMA No. 17/78,

the Government has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature

at Madras in CRP.No. 37461/80 and the Hon’ble Court had dismissed the appeal

vide its order, dated 20-11-1980.

5. And whereas, in a relevant land reforms case, the opinion of the Law

Department was sought to prefer appeal against the order of the Hon’ble High Court

of Judicature at Madras in the Apex Court by the Authorised Officer on 15-03-1986

for the assessee Tmt. Lakshmibai Ammal, wife of Muthuvenkatarama Reddiyar (late),

Manamedu, and the Law Department has opined as follows:

“ .... If, the Department proposes to take further proceedings in this case

they have to abide by the orders of the Land Tribunal which has been confirmed

by the High Court in the Revision Petition filed by us. In other words, the holdings

of the minor who become major between the appointed day and the notified day,

and also that of the daughter who was unmarried on the appointed date and was

married before the notified date should be excluded from the family holdings. If, so

excluded, it is not known whether there will be any surplus lands to be taken over

by the Government. Also this would be against the stand taken by us in other cases,

wherein, we have filed appeals in the Supreme Court. We are not in a position to

take up on appeal, this case due to bar of limitation. It is therefore suggested that

in this case, the Department may take action after knowing results of the appeal

filed by us in the Supreme Court on the points which are in issue now ..... ”

PART-I ]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

1645

6. And whereas, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its common order,

dated 30-06-1994 in relevant land reforms cases in respect of the appeals filed by

the Government in Civil Appeal Nos. 135/79, 1625/79 and 4646/94 arising out of

SLP No. 6468/80 has observed as follows:

“ .... the judgments of the High Court under appeal as well as the orders

passed by the Land Tribunal holding that the share of the minor son attaining

majority after the appointed day must be excluded from the holding of the family

are set aside and the orders passed by the Authorised Officer are restored. ..... ”

7. And whereas, the Advocate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide

letter, dated 06-08-1994 has stated that the common judgment has been delivered

on 30-06-1994 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in respect of the appeal filed

by the Government in Civil Appeal Nos. 135/79, 1625/79 and 4646/94 arising out of

SLP No. 6468/80. Wherein, it has been held that section 9(2)(a) of the Act on a

proper interpretation does not permit the exclusion of the minor son becoming a

major between “appointed day” and “notified day” and an unmarried girl becoming

married between the said two days.

8. And whereas, during the year 2008, the Additional Secretary (Revenue),

has instructed to freeze/remove GLR value in respect of subject land until

completion of the Land Reforms Proceedings. Accordingly, the Authorised Officer

has published a notification vide proceeding No. 2978/DCRS/LR/Cl/2007-08 and

informed to the public that the Guide Line Value for the lands of the assessee Thiru

Muthuvenkatapathy Reddiyar, son of Sundara Reddiyar, in Embalam and Korkadu

Revenue Villages, Bahour Taluk will be freezed till the completion of the proceedings

under Puducherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973.

9. And whereas, consequent to the notification, the Guide Line Value for

the lands of the assessee Thiru Muthuvenkatapathy Reddiyar, son of Sundara

Reddiyar, in Embalam and Korkadu Revenue Villages, Bahour Taluk were freezed

so as to acquire the surplus holdings of the assessee. However, the assesees

resisted the acquisition process on the grounds that the order of the Hon’ble High

Court/Land Tribunal have attained finality as no appeal was preferred against the

order(s) of the Hon'ble High Court/Land Tribunal.

10. And whereas, the opinion of the Law Department was sought to

continue the Land Reforms Proceedings in a relevant land reforms case relating to

the assesse, Thiru Sadasiva Reddiyar, son of Lakshmana Reddiyar, Manamedu,

Bahour. The Law Department has advised with the following facts;

“ .... The Authorised Officer/Government in other similar land reforms

cases, it is to appreciated that the legal position of a minor, who may attain majority

between the appointed day and the notified date under Puducherry Land Reforms

(Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act, 1973 has been fully settled by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Government of Union territory of Puducherry vs.

Mohd. Husain reported in (1994) 5 SCC 121. Since, the law is now settled in the

aforesaid judgment by the Apex Court, all similar land reforms cases pending

adjudications will be covered by the said declaration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court ... ”.

1646

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[ PART-I

1646

Further, the Law Department also stated that the Administrative

Department may expedite necessary action in consultation with the Advocate on

Record in respect of all pending litigations to defend the interest of this

Administration.

11. And whereas, based on the opinion of the Law Department, the opinion

of Advocate on Record, Thiru V.G. Pragasam was sought for preferring appeal on

similar four land reforms cases. In this regard, the opinion of Thiru R. Venkataramani,

Senior Advocate, Supreme Court Chamber, Law Commission of India was obtained

by Thiru V.G. Pragasam, Advocate on Record for Government of Puducherry,

Supreme Court of India and communicated as detailed below;

“ .... there is no scope whatsoever of filing an appeal at this point of

time. Even though, the orders passed by the High Court may not be in consonance

with the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.A.No. 135/1979, the orders passed by

the High Court will continue to prevail, since appeals have not been filed in the

above-mentioned four cases. Merely because, the High Court judgments are not in

consonance with that of the Supreme Court, the finality attained by them long ago

cannot be reopened now. I also find that the land in question has changed hands

during this long period...... ”

12. And whereas, the Law Department has pointed the same opinion of

Senior Advocate of Supreme Court of India and opined as follows:

“ .... Due to non-preferring of appeal in all the said four land reforms

cases, the order of the High Court has attained finality and continue to prevail as

on date, hence, there is no scope for filing appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India in this matter .... ”

13. And whereas, based on the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature

at Madras, dated 20-11-1980 and as per the directions of LTCMA No. 17/78, dated

29-08-1979.

v

If, we exclude the shares of land(s) allotted to (i) Thiru Sundara

Raman, (ii) Thiru Lakshmi Narayanan and (iii) Thiru Mohan, son

of Muthuvenkatapathy Reddiyar, then there would be no surplus

land(s) to be acquired from the total holdings of the assessee Thiru

Muthuvenkatapathy Reddiyar, son of Sundara Reddiyar. The total

holdings of the assessee would be reduced to 3.309 Std. Hec., which

would be within the ceiling limit as per section 4(1) and (b) of the

Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land Act), 1973.

v

Since, there would be surplus lands to be acquired from the total

holdings of the assessee, continuing the Land Reforms

Proceedings against the assessee Thiru Muthuvenkatapathy

Reddiyar, son of Sundara Reddiyar will be futile.

14. And whereas, recently the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras

in its order, dated 04-07-2022 in Writ Petitions W.P.Nos. 15446, 15323 and 15499 of

2022 and W.M.P.Nos. 14593, 14489 and 14666 of 2022 has directed as follows:

“ .... the respondents have to withdraw the Land Reforms Proceedings

by assigning GLR value for the subject lands. Hence, this Court directs the second

respondent to pass appropriate orders, withdrawing the land reforms proceedings

by assigning GLR value in respect of the subject lands.........”

PART-I ]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

1647

online publication at “https://styandptg.py.gov.in”

Published by the Director, Government Press, Puducherry.

15. And whereas, the Secretary (Revenue)-cum-Land Commissioner has

also concurred to pass appropriate orders to withdraw the Land Reforms Proceedings

and to assign GLR value in respect of the subject lands of the Assessee Thiru

Muthuvenkatapathy, son of Sundara Reddiyar, Korkadu Revenue Village vide

I.D.Note, dated 21-08-2022 of the Secretary (Revenue)-cum-Land Commissioner.

16. Now, therefore, as the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature

at Madras, dated 20-11-1980 in CRP.No. 37461/80 has attained finality and continue

to prevail as on date due to non-preference of appeal and in compliance with the

order, dated 29-08-1979 in LTCMA No.17/78 and order of the Hon’ble High Court

of Judicature at Madras, dated 04-07-2022 in Writ Petitions W.P.Nos. 15446, 15323

and 15499 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos. 14593, 14489 and 14666 of 2022 and as well as

in view of the facts discussed above I, K. Muralidharan, Deputy Collector (Revenue)

South-cum-Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), hereby order that the Land Reforms

Proceedings initiated to acquire surplus lands in Embalam and Korkadu Revenue

Villages, Bahour Taluk in respect of the assessee Thiru Muthuvenkatapathy

Reddiyar, son of Sundara Reddiyar under the Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on

Land) Act, 1973 shall be treated as withdrawn.

K. MURALIDHARAN,

Authorised Officer (Land Reforms).

————