Holding

The family is entitled to 15 standard acres plus an additional 10 standard acres of stridhana land for the female member, and the surplus land declaration was illegal.

Summary

The case concerned the interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 in a dispute over surplus land declared against the husband of the respondent, Rajeswari. The Authorized Officer had declared 3.06 standard acres as surplus, a decision upheld by the Land Commissioner. Rajeswari challenged the order in the High Court, which quashed the surplus declaration, a decision affirmed by the Division Bench. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a female member’s stridhana land could be excluded from the family’s ceiling calculation under Sections 5(4)(a) and 5(4)(b)(i) and whether the family’s total holding exceeded the statutory ceiling. The Court held that the family is entitled to 15 standard acres plus an additional 10 standard acres of stridhana land for the female member, making the total holding below the ceiling, so the surplus declaration was illegal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a female member holding stridhana land is deemed a member of the family for the purpose of calculating the land ceiling under the Act.
Whether Section 5(4)(a) allows a female member to hold an additional 10 standard acres of stridhana land irrespective of the number of family members.
Whether Section 5(4)(b)(i) merely prevents double benefit and does not exclude the female member from the family definition.
Whether the surplus land declared by the Authorized Officer was valid under the statutory ceiling.

Subjects

land ceilingstridhana landfamily definitionTamil Nadu land reformssurplus landstatutory interpretation

Judgment

LAND COMMISSIONER, MADRAS AND ANR. A
V.

RAJESHWARI

APRIL 3, 2003

[K.y. BALAKRISHNAN AND G. P. MATHUR, JJ.] B

land laws:

Tamil Nadu land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act, 1961; Ss.
3(14) & 5: c
land ceiling-Holding of stridhana land exceeding standard !imit-
lnclusion of-Surplus land-Declaration of-Held: Combined effect of
provision of law under Sections 5(/)(a), 5(4)(a) and 5(4)(b)(i) is that a family
is entitled to hold the land equivalent to certain prescribed ceiling limit of D
land plus stridhana land- Since holding of stridhana land cannot be treated
as a separate unit of the female member, family of the respondent was holding
less than 'ceiling limit -Hence, surplus land declared by the authority was
illegal-Interpretation of Statutes.

Words & Phrases: E
'Stridhana Land'-Meaning and scope of in the context of Tamil Nadu
land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act, 1961.

In the proceeding initiated against the husband of the respondent
under Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, the F
Authorised Officer declared 3. 06 standard acres of land as surplus land
and published in the official gazette. Land Commissioner dismissed the
revision petition preferred against the order of the authority. The
respondent preferred a writ petition which was allowed by the Single
Judge of the High Court and affirmed by the Division Bench. Hence the
present appeal. G
It was contended for the appellant-authority that the family of the
respondent consisted of six members and the respondent was holding 13.
06 standard acres of land as stridhana land; besides her husband held 8.
. 23 standard acres of land which combinedly exceeded the ceiling limit of H
361
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A land holding viz. 20 standard acres; that the respondent, a female member,
had to be excluded from consideration as family member; and that the
respondent was not entitled to hold stridhana exceeding I 0 standard acres
of land as per provisions of law.

On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that since the
B proceedings had been initiated against her husband, the land held by the
respondent as stridhana could not have been declared as surplus in the
proceedings; that as per relevant provisions of law under the T. N. Land
Act additional benefit is given to the female family member provided she
should not claim double benefits both u/ss. 5(l)(b) and 5(4)(a) but she could
C not be treated as deemed member of the family.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The clear import of Section 5(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu
Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act is that where the
D 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. This provision 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
E 10 standard acres is given in every case. 1367-A-BI

1.2. The purpose of enacting Section 5(4)(b)(i) is that a female
member having stridhana land may not get double advantage, by claiming
5 standard acres of additional land under Section 5(1 )(b) and also I 0
-
standard acres of additional land under Section 5(4)(a) of the Act. The
F legislature has made it more than clear by using the expression "for the
purposes of clause (b) to sub-section (l)" in Section 5(4)(b)(i) of the Act.
The combined effect of Section 5(l)(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 respondent-wife in her own right is entitled to hold
G stridhana land to the PX tent of 10 standard acres. 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.
1367-C-D-E]

H 1.3. The Tamil nadu Land Reforms (FiXation of Ceiling on Land)
I

LAND COMMISSIONER v. RAJESHW ARI 363
Act, 1961 has been enacted to provide for the fixation of ceiling on A
agricultural land holdings and for certain other matters connected
therewith. 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 ll)ember having stridhana land in her own B
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 C
may have the effect of applying any ceiling to only stridhana land held by
a female member. The appellants 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.
[367-G-H; 368-A-B-C-DJ D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4965 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.1997 of the Chennai High
Court in W.A. No. 693 of 1991.

A.T.M. Sampath, P.N. Ramalingam, V. Balaji, Ms. T.S. Shanthi, E
Ms. Arthi Radakrishnan for the Appellant.

V. Balachandran for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
· G.P. MATHUR, J. This appeal by special leave has been filed by the
Land Commissioner, Madras and Anr. challenging the judgment and order
dated 13.2.1997 ofa 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 G
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 H
•

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) 3 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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 submistted that the family of R.
Vivekananda Reddiar consisted of six members including his wife Rajeswari
D 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 nonnal course the ceiling
limit would be 20 standard acres but as Rajeswari had in her own right
E 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 I0 standard acres can be included in
F 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
G 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 cou Id 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
H stridhana land may not clai111 double benefit both under Sections 5(1 )(b) and
LAND COMMISSIONER v. RAJESHWARI [MATHUR, J.] 365
5(4)(a) of the Act and not that she shall not be deemed to be a member of A
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 B
(i) minor sons and unmarried daughters, and
. (ii) minor grandsons and unmarried grand-daughters in the male line,
whose father and mother are dead.

-
-<'
I
Explanation I - xxxxxx (Omitted as not relevant) c
Explanation II - xxxxxx (Omitted as not relevant)
__,•
Sec. 5. Ceiling area (I) (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 pf every person (other than the institutions referred to in clauses D
(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 E
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) xxxxxx (Omitted as not relevant) F
(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) G
(4) (a) Subje~t 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 o_f 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 H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 3 S.C.R.

A (I}, stridhana land not exceeding I 0 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 (I) and in case where the extent so included ,
is
B
(i) I 0 or more than I0 standard acres, she shall not be entitled to
hold any stridhana land in addition to the extent so included; or
(ii) less than I0 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 I0 standard acres.
c
(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-
D section (I); or
(ii) is less than 5 standard acres, the additional extent of 5 standard
acres allowed under clause (b) of sub-section (I} be reduced by
the same extent as the extent of stridhana land so held.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I) and in sub-
E 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
F that under Section 5(1)(a} and (b}, the ceiling area in case ofa 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
G 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 he la by all the members of that family is in excess of 15 standard acres,
H the female member concerned may hold, in addition to the extent of land
LAND COMMISSIONER v. RAJESHWARI [MATHUR, J.) 367
which the family is entitled to hold under sub-section (I), stridhana land not A
exceeding I 0 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 I 0 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.
B
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 (I) and, therefore, in the present case
though the family consisted of six members (husband, wife and four children), C
in view of the aforesaid provision the family would be entitled to only I 5
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 I0 standard D
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 th is advantage of allowing a female member to hold additional stridhana
land not exceeding I0 standard acres is given in every case. The purpose of
enacting Section 5(4)(b)(i) is that a female member'having stridhana land E
may not get double advantage, namely, by claiming 5 standard acres of
additional land under Section 5(1 )(b) and also I0 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
(!)"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 F
standard acres of land and in addition, the wife Rajeswari in her own right
is entitled to hold stridhana land to the extent of I0 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 l 0 standard acres and, therefore, the surplus
declared by the Authorised Officer which was upheld by the Land G
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 I0 standard acres and since the respondent
Rajeswari had stridhana land in excess of I 0 standard acres, the same was H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
C 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
individi.:al 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
D 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 onll
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
E 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 acn;s 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
F 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
I0 standard acres ofland out of her stridhana land treat the balance as surplus
in her hand.

G 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.

S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.
H