G. B. Pattanaik, J. - (1.)The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the provisions of Section 21-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case and the appellant can derive benefit of the same, and if so, to what extent When the matter was listed before a Bench of two judges of this Court Their Lordships felt that there is a conflict between two decisions of this Court both rendered by two Hon'ble Judges, one in the case of B. Gopal Reddiar (dead) By Lrs. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1995) 2 Suppl. SCC 481 , to which one of us was a party, namely (Hon'ble Punchhi, J., as he then was), and the other in the case of A. G. Vardarajulu v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 4 SCC 231 and that is how the matter has come before a three Judge Bench.
(2.)The appellant was the owner of 43.55 standard acres of agricultural land. He also purchased some land on 20-10-1961. The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "The Act") came into force on 5-4-1960. A proceeding under the Act was initiated by the authorised officer who came to the conclusion 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. 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. 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 comes to 19.28 standard acres. It may be stated that subsequent acquisition made by the appellant was taken into consideration for computing the surplus land. The appellant-land owner filed objection to the said draft statement contending 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 computation 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 authorised officer, however, rejected the said objection and the matter being carried in an appeal, the appeal was also dismissed. The appellant then preferred a Revision to the High Court and the High Court by the impugned judgment in C. W. P. No. 3688 of 1982 having negatived the contention of the appellant and having dismissed the Revision, the present appeal has been preferred. The High Court considered 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 Sections 3 (1) and 3(2) of the said Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1970 and came to the conclusion that the proceedings in the present case having been initiated under the Principal Act the same has to be continued and concluded 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 no application.
(3.)The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in view of non-obstante clause in Section 21-A and the legislatures having allowed a land owner to transfer a part of his land between 15-2-1970 and 2-10-1970 the High Court committed serious error in coming to the conclusion that Section 21-A has no application to the present case. According to the learned counsel Section 21-A has an overriding effect on all provisions of the Land Reforms Act or even any other law in force and, therefore, the said provision must have its full play and cannot be restricted in any manner so as to exclude its operation to a proceeding which had been initiated prior to coming into force of the said Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1970. In support of his contention reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Susila Devi Ammal v. State of Madras, (1993) 1 SCC 462 and V. Gopal Reddiar v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1995) 2 Suppl. SCC 481 . The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State on the other hand contended, that the aforesaid interpretation would frustrate the very object of the Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1970, namely, to reduce the ceiling area from 30 standard acres to 15 standard acres and, therefore, the High Court rightly held that Section 21-A will have no application.