[ 515 ]

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

ÿk^π¬˛wÁ\

2023 }

Û[ |

16 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Vendredi

Juin

2023 (26 Jyaistha 1945)

No.

Puducherry

Friday

16th

June

2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE) SOUTH, VILLIANUR

PUDUCHERRY

No. 15282/SCRS/LR-WD-3/B2/2022-23/1322.

Villianur, dated 14th June 2023.

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 sections 11 and 13 in the

Extraordinary Gazette No. 246, dated, 15-12-1975.

Order, dated 10-03-1976 in LTCMA Nos. 6 and 7 of 1976 in

the Court of the Principal Sub-Judge at Pondicherry.

Letter, dated 23-12-2010 of the Government Pleader-cum-

Public Prosecutor for Puducherry, Madras High Court.

516

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[ PART-I

516

Legal Opinion, dated 27-04-2012 of Advocate on Record,

Government of Puducherry, Supreme Court of India.

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

No. l78/Adv.,/2015.LD., dated 23-07-2015.

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

Land Commissioner.

Order, dated 30-03-2023 of the Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature at Madras in W.P.No. 8259 of 2023.

ORDER

Whereas, Land Reforms proceedings was initiated to acquire surplus land

holdings situated at Kodathur, Kakilapet, Suthukeny, Thethampakkam and

Manamedu Revenue Villages in Villianur and Bahour Taluks in respect of the

assessee Thiru Manickavasaga Reddiar, son of Sangara Reddiar under the

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

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

that Thiru Manickavasaga Reddiar, son of Sankara Reddiar, is holding land in excess

of ceiling limit in Kodathur, Kakilapet, Suthukeny, Thethampakkam and Manamedu

Revenue Villages, Villianur and Bahour Taluks as prescribed under the Pondicherry

Land Reform (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973. The Authorised Officer after

completing all procedures required under the Land Reforms Act, 1973 published

Final Statement under section 11/13 of the Act in the Extraordinary Gazette No. 246,

dated 15-12-1975 declaring that the land to an extent of 02.32.14 Ha. in Kodathur,

Kakilapet, Suthukeny, Thethampakkam and Manamedu Revenue Villages as 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. 06/76

and 07/76 and the Land Tribunal vide its order, dated 10-03-1976 has allowed the

appeal and set aside the orders of the Authorised Officer as follows:

“.... In the result, common order is passed in L.T.C.M.A. 6 and 7. The two

C.M.A’s are allowed. The lands held by Thiru Ramamurthy, son of Manickavasaga

Reddiar under the material deed, dated 27-11-1964 are ordered to be excluded from

the draft statement published by the Authorised Officer showing the lands of

Thiru Manickavasaga Reddiar as 7.532 standard hectares ....”.

4. And whereas, against the order of the Land Tribunal in LTCMA No. 06/76

and 07/76, the Government has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court

of Judicature at Madras and the same was numbered as S.R.No. 41533/1977 and

41534/1977.

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

Reddiar (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.

PART-I ]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

517

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 .....”.

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 Manickavasaga Reddiar, son of Sangara Reddiar, in Kodathur, Kakilapet,

Suthukeny, Thethampakkam and Manamedu Revenue Villages, Villianur and Bahour

Taluks, will be freezed till the completion of the proceedings under Pondicherry

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 Manickavasaga Reddiar, son of Sangara Reddiar,

in Kodathur, Kakilapet, Suthukeny, Thethampakkam and Manamedu Revenue

Villages, Villianur and Bahour Taluks were freezed so as to acquire the surplus

holdings of the assessee. However, the assesee resisted the acquisition process

on the grounds that the order of the Land Tribunal have attained finality and the

status of appeal preferred against the order(s) of the Land Tribunal is not known

and unlikely to trace it in the registry.

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 Reddiar, son of Lakshmana Reddiar, Manamedu

Revenue Village. 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 Pondicherry

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

518

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[ PART-I

518

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 ...”.

Further, the Law Department has 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, recently the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras

in its order, dated 30-03-2023 in Writ Petition W.P.No. 8259 of 2023 has directed as

follows:

“....... this Court is of the view that no such revision is pending and

that the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Pondicherry, in L.T.C.M.A.Nos. 6

and 7 of 1976, dated 10-03-1976, has become final. In view of this, the title over

the subject lands would automatically be reverted to the name of the petitioner

herein and therefore, the GLR Value, in respect of the subject lands, requires to

be defrozen .......”.

“........ In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction

to the respondents 1 and 2 herein to forthwith pass orders, defreezing the Guideline

Rate Value (GLR Value), in respect of the lands situated in (i) R.S.No. l05/1pt.,

Cad.No. 7/4, measuring 0-03-05, (H.A.C); (ii) R.S.No. 105/1pt., Cad No. 7-5/2,

measuring 0-03-20 (H.A.C); (iii) R.S.No. 105/1pt., Cad No. 7/2, measuring

0-15-65 (H.A.C), (iv) R.S.No. 109pt., Cad No. 289-2/1 measuring 0-14-45 (H.A.C);

(v) R.S.No. 102/4, Cad No. 159/2, measuring 0-01-75 (H.A.C), Kodathur Village,

Bahour Taluk, Puducherry, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of

a copy of this order ....”.

14. And whereas, based on the directions in LTCMA No. 06/76 and 07/76,

dated 10-03-1976.

PART-I ]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

519

v If, we exclude the share portion of lands allotted to the minor son

Thiru Ramamurthy, son of Manickavasaga Reddiar as directed in

the LTCMA by taking into account of material deed, dated

27-11-1964 and final statement published in Extraordinary Gazette

No. 246, dated 15-12-1975, the remaining land holdings of the

assessee works out as detailed below:

Total holdings of the

Land holdings in the

Remaining land holdings in

assessee Thiru

name of minor son

the name of the assessee

Manickavasaga Reddiar

Thiru Ramamurthy as

after excluding the shares

including major sons

per the material deed

of minor sons

as notified in final

(1-2)

statement

(1)

(2)

(3)

7.275 Std. HAC

7 hectares 37 ares and

4.275 Std. HAC

60 centiares equivalent

to 3.00 Std. HAC

v The total holdings of the assessee will be reduced to 4.275 Std.

HAC, which is 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 no surplus lands to be acquired from the

total holdings of the assessee, continuing the land reforms

proceedings against the assessee Thiru Manickavasaga Reddiar,

son of Sangara Reddiar will be futile.

15. Now therefore, as the order, dated 10-03-1976 in LTCMA No. 06 and 07

of 1976 has attained finality and continue to prevail as on date and in compliance

with the order, dated 30-03-2023 of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras

in Writ Petition W.P.No. 8259 of 2023 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 situated in Kodathur, Kakilapet, Suthukeny, Thethampakkam

Revenue Villages in Villianur Taluk and Manamedu Revenue Village in Bahour Taluk,

in respect of the assessee Thiru Manickavasaga Reddiar, son of Sangara Reddiar

under the Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973 shall be treated as

withdrawn.

K. MURALIDHARAN,

Authorised Officer (Land Reforms).

————

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

Published by the Director, Government Press, Puducherry.