The
Land Commissioner Madras & Anr Vs. Rajeswari [2003] Insc 214 (3 April 2003)
K.G.
Balakrishnan & G.P. Mathur. G.P. Mathur, J.
This
appeal by special leave has been filed by the Land Commissioner, Madras & Anr.
challenging the judgment and order dated 13.2.1997 of a Division Bench of
Madras High Court by which the writ appeal filed by the appellants was
dismissed and the judgment and order dated 15.11.1989 of a learned Single Judge
passed in favour of the respondent was affirmed.
Proceedings
under Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were initiated against R.
Vivekananda Reddiar, who is the husband of the respondent, Rajeswari.
The Authorised
Officer declared 3.06 standard acres of land as surplus and a final statement
was published in the Gazette on 13.8.1980. R. Vivekananda Reddiar preferred a
revision petition under Section 82 of the Act, which was dismissed by the Land
Commissioner vide order dated 7.5.1981 on the finding that the family consisted
of six members and the respondent, Rajeswari, was holding more than 5 standard
acres of land and, therefore, she was not to be considered as a member of the
family in view of Section 5(4)(b)(i) of the Act. The respondent Rajeswari
preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before Madras
High Court challenging the judgment and order of the Land Commissioner by which
the final statement published in the Gazette was affirmed. The writ petition
was allowed by a learned Single Judge on 15.11.1989 and the order declaring
3.06 standard acres of land as surplus was quashed. The writ appeal preferred
by the Land Commissioner and the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) against the
said judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench on 13.2.1997.
Learned
counsel for the appellants has submitted that the family of R.Vivekananda Reddiar
consisted of six members including his wife Rajeswari who in her own right held
25.15 ordinary acres equivalent to 13.06 standard acres of land as her stridhana
land while R. Vivekananda Reddiar held 15.19 ordinary acres equivalent to 8.23
standard acres of land.
The
family consisted of husband, wife and four children and in normal course the
ceiling limit would be 20 standard acres but as Rajeswari had in her own right stridhana
land in excess of 5 standard acres, therefore, by virtue of Section 5(4)(b)(i)
of the Act, she shall not be deemed to be a member of the family and,
therefore, she had to be excluded from consideration. Learned counsel has
further submitted that in view of Section 5(4)(a) of the Act only a maximum
extent of 10 standard acres can be included in the holding of the family as stridhana
land and where the stridhana land to the extent of 10 standard acres held by a
female member has been included in the family holding, the said female member
is not entitled to hold any stridhana land in addition to the extent which has
been allowed to be included under Section 5(4)(a) of the Act. Learned counsel
for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that proceedings had been
initiated against R. Vivekananda Reddiar and not against the respondent Rajeswari
and as such the land held by her as her stridhana land could not have been
declared as surplus. Learned counsel has further submitted that in view of
Section 5(4)(a) of the Act, additional benefit is given to the family member
holding stridhana land and the only effect of Section 5(4)(b)(i) is that a
female member holding stridhana land may not claim double benefit both under
Sections 5(1)(b) and 5(4)(a) of the Act and not that she shall not be deemed to
be a member of the family.
Before
we examine the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is
necessary to set out the relevant provisions of Act, which read as under :
"Sec.
3(14) "family" in relation to a person means the person, the wife or
husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her
(i) minor
sons and unmarried daughters, and
(ii) minor
grandsons and unmarried grand-daughters in the male line, whose father and
mother are dead.
Explanation
I - xxx xxx (Omitted as not relevant)
Explanation
II - xxx xxx (Omitted as not relevant) Sec. 5. Ceiling area (1) (a) Subject to
the provisions of sub-sections (3-A), (3-B) and (3-C) and of Chapter VIII, the
ceiling area in the case of every person (other than the institutions referred
to in clauses (c) and (d) and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3-A),
(3-B) (4) and (5) and of Chapter VIII, the ceiling area in the case of every
family consisting of not more than five members shall be 15 standard acres.
(b)
The ceiling area in the case of every family consisting of more than five
members shall, subject to the provisions of sub- sections [(3-A), (3-B), (3-C)]
(4) and (5) and of Chapter VIII, be 15 standard acres together with an
additional 5 standard acres for every member of the family in excess of five.
(c)
xxx xxx (Omitted as not relevant) (2) For the purposes of this section, all the
lands held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of
the members of such family shall be deemed to be held by the family.
(3)
xxx xxx (Omitted as not relevant) (4) (a) Subject to the provisions of
sub-section (5), where the stridhana land held by any female member of a family
together with the other land held by all the members of that family, is in
excess of 15 standard acres, the female member concerned may hold, in addition
to the extent of land which the family is entitled to hold under sub-section
(1), stridhana land not exceeding 10 standard acres :
Provided
that where any extent of stridhana land held by a female member is included in
the extent of land which the family is entitled to hold under sub-section (1)
and in case where the extent so included is
(i) 10
or more than 10 standard acres, she shall not be entitled to hold any stridhana
land in addition to the extent so included; or
(ii) less
than 10 standard acres, she may hold in addition to the extent so included an
extent of stridhana land, which together with the extent so included, shall not
exceed 10 standard acres.
(b)
Where the extent of stridhana land held under clause (a) by any female member
of a family consisted of more than five members (i) is 5 or more than 5
standard acres, she shall not be deemed to be a member of that family for the
purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1); or (ii) is less than 5 standard
acres, the additional extent of 5 standard acres allowed under clause (b) of
sub-section (1) be reduced by the same extent as the extent of stridhana land
so held.
(5) Notwithstanding
anything contained in sub-section (1) and in sub-section (4) and in Chapter
VIII the total extent of the land held or deemed to be held by any family shall
in no case exceed 30 standard acres." A plain reading of the above quoted
provisions of the Act would show that under Section 5(1)(a) and (b), the
ceiling area in case of a family consisting of not less than 5 members is 15
standard acres and where the family consists of more than 5 members, subject to
the provisions referred to in sub-clause (b), the family will be entitled to
additional 5 standard acres of land for every member of the family in excess of
5. In view of Section 5(5) of the Act, the total extent of the land held by a
family shall in no case exceed 30 standard acres. Section 5(2) lays down that
all lands held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or
all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be held by the family.
Section 5(4)(a) provides that where the stridhana land held by any female
member of a family together with the other land held by all the members of that
family is in excess of 15 standard acres, the female member concerned may hold,
in addition to the extent of land which the family is entitled to hold under
sub- section (1), stridhana land not exceeding 10 standard acres. It is
important to note that the language used in this provision is that the female
member concerned may hold additional stridhana land not exceeding 10 standard
acres and, therefore, this provision has been enacted to give an additional
advantage to the family where the female member holds stridhana land in her own
right.
Learned
counsel for the appellants has submitted that as the respondent Rajeswari had stridhana
land in her own name, which was more than 5 standard acres, she could not be
deemed to be a member of the family for the purposes of Clause (b) of
sub-section (1) and, therefore, in the present case though the family consisted
of six members (husband, wife and four children), in view of the aforesaid
provision the family would be entitled to only 15 standard acres of land. In
our opinion the contention raised is wholly misconceived. The clear import of
Section 5(4) (a) of the Act is that where the stridhana land held by any female
member of a family together with the other land held by all the members of that
family is in excess of 15 standard acres, the female member concerned may hold
an additional 10 standard acres of stridhana land. It may be noted that this
provision, namely, Section 5(4)(a) does not make any reference to the number of
members of the family and this advantage of allowing a female member to hold
additional stridhana land not exceeding 10 standard acres is given in every
case. The purpose of enacting Section 5(4)(b)(i) is that a female member having
stridhana land may not get double advantage, namely, by claiming 5 standard
acres of additional land under Section 5(1)(b) and also 10 standard acres of
additional land under Section 5(4)(a) of the Act. The legislature has made it
more than clear by using the expression "for the purposes of clause (b) to
sub-section (1)" in Section 5(4)(b)(i) of the Act. The combined effect of
Section 5(1) (a), Section 5(4)(a) and Section 5(4)(b) (i) is that the family is
entitled to hold 15 standard acres of land and in addition, the wife Rajeswari
in her own right is entitled to hold stridhana land to the extent of 10
standard acres. In the case in hand the total holding of the family is less
than the prescribed ceiling limit of 15 standard acres plus 10 standard acres
and, therefore, the surplus declared by the Authorised Officer which was upheld
by the Land Commissioner is clearly illegal.
Learned
counsel for the appellants has next urged that in view of Section 5(4)(a) and
the proviso to this sub-section, the female member cannot hold stridhana land
in excess of 10 standard acres and since the respondent Rajeswari had stridhana
land in excess of 10 standard acres, the same was rightly declared as surplus
and the High Court erred in holding to the contrary and in quashing the order
by which 3.06 standard acres of land of the respondent was declared as surplus.
In our opinion, the contention raised has no substance. The Tamil Nadu Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, as the Preamble shows, has
been enacted to provide for the fixation of ceiling on agricultural land
holdings and for certain other matters connected therewith. Chapter II of the
Act deals with fixation of ceiling on land holdings. Section 5 has fixed the
ceiling area with respect to a family and the word "family" has been
defined in Section 3(14) of the Act. The Scheme of the Act clearly shows that
the ceiling area has to be determined with reference to a family keeping in
view the number of members thereof and the provisions of the Act. The fact that
Section 5 makes reference to a female member having stridhana land in her own
name would not mean that any ceiling on land holding can be applied to or
surplus land can be determined of an individual female member of a family
having stridhana land. Such a female member having stridhana land in her own
name is also a member of the family within the meaning of the main part of
Section 3(14) of the Act and there is absolutely no scope or occasion for
interpreting Section 5(4)(a) of the Act in a manner which may have the effect
of applying any ceiling to only stridhana land held by a female member. If the
contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is accepted, it may
lead to queer results. In a case where the family consists of six members and a
female member holds 5 standard acres as her stridhana land, while the remaining
members hold 15 standard acres, no surplus land will be declared but if the
female member holds 15 standard acres as her stridhana land while the remaining
members hold 5 standard acres, 5 standard acres of the female member will be
declared as surplus though in both the cases the total land held by the family
is only 20 standard acres.
This
kind of interpretation will make the provisions of the Act wholly arbitrary and
must be avoided. The appellants, therefore, cannot treat the respondent's
holding as a separate unit and after taking into account 10 standard acres of
land out of her stridhana land treat the balance as surplus in her hand.
For
the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the
learned Single Judge and also by the Division Bench in writ appeal, which was
filed by the appellants is perfectly correct and calls for no interference. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Back