K.ABATHSAGAYAM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On: 30.04.2026 Delivered On: 02.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
W.P.No.14073 of 2004
& W.M.P.No.16589 of 2004
K. Abathasagayam,
Son of G.Krishnaswamy,
No.5/l7, Middle Street, Mudikondan,
Thiruvarur District 609 502. … Petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By the Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Land Reforms,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3. Authorised Officer and Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Mayuranathar Keezhaveethi,
Mayiladuthurai – 609 001. … Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
to issue writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Special
Revision Petition No.5/2000, on the file of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms
Special Appellate Tribunal and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional,
rd
consequentially set aside the proceedings of the 3 respondent in
R.C.No.MRI/164/17/70/NNL/A6, dated 28.04.2004.
______________
Page Nos.1/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
Prayer amended as per order dated 27.07.2018 by MVMJ in W.M.P.No.2244/2018 in
W.P.No.14073 of 2004.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Ravichandar,
Special Government Pleader, for R1 & R2
: Tribunal, for R3

O R D E R
The Writ Petitioner is the grandson of Late Gurumoorthy Iyer.
Proceedings under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of
ceiling on Land) Act, 58 of 1961, as amended by Act 17 of 1970, was initiated
by the Settlement Officer on being prima facie satisfied that, as on 15.02.1970,
the said Gurumoorthy Iyer holding acquirable surplus land.
2. The nature and extent of land identified as owned by the said late
Gurumoorthy Iyer are as below:-
Village Dry Land Wet Land Total
Mudikondan 32.35 acres 0.69 acres 33.04 acres
Alangadu 0.11 acres 0.12 acres 0.24 acres
Samudhaya lands 3.80 acres 5.16 acres 8.96 acres
3. The return in Form No. 2 filed by the landowner and the revenue
records were verified by the Authorised Officer, positively considered the claim
______________
Page Nos.2/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
of the landowner to exclude 17.96 acres of land settled to his wife Janakiammal
and his daughter-in-law, Thiyu Ammal, under deeds dated 01.01.1970 and
01.02.1970 respectively. However, the Authorised Officer rejected his claim to
exclude the share of Gurumoorthy Iyer in the Samudhaya land, it being a patta
land and the kist was being paid by him. The proceedings of the Authorised
Officer in MRI/16G/17-70, dated 13.09.1979 under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act,
concluded as below:-
“It is seen from the report of the Special
Deputy Tahsildar and the Karnam of Mudikondan that the
land owner is paying kist etc., regularly for the entire
extent of 8.96 acres of Samudayam lands. Therefore the
land owner is the owner of the above lands with reference
to Section 3(33)(a)(i) of T.N.L.R Act and the above lands
are ordered to be included in the holdings of the land
owner and kept in the retainable extent with reference to
Section 10(4) proviso.
As detailed the net holding of the land owner is
19.67 std of and he is eligible to hold 15 std.acre. He is
requested to furnish the details of Survey number for the
surplus extent of 4.57 std acres within 10 days from the
date of receipt of this order failing which the surplus lands
will be determined under Section 10(3) of the Act and
further action will be taken.”
______________
Page Nos.3/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
4. As against the proceedings of the Authorised Officer, Gurumoorthy
Iyer preferred an appeal under Section 78 of the Act before the Tribunal, headed
by the District Revenue Officer, challenging the inclusion of Samudhaya land
along with the personal land held by the landowner to determine the surplus.
5. Pending appeal, Gurumoorthy Iyer died. His wife and son got
impleaded and contested the appeal. The appeal was dismissed with the
following observations:
“ Admittedly it is not the case of the appellant
that he did not owned any share in the Samuthayam lands.
As far as the title to the property in question he is the
owner of an extent of 3.80 Ac. of wet lands and 5.16 Ac. of
dry lands in this Samuthayam lands. Though the lands are
owned in common with other persons and in common
enjoyment and common management the right of the
appellant for partitioning his proportionate share can not
be denied or objected by anyone. In as much as the
appellant is the owner of the Samuthayam Lands,
including his proportionate share interest along with his
holdings for determining the total extent of lands.
It is, however, contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should be
given an opportunity to surrender the Samuthayam land is
surplus land. The proceedings disclosed that the stage for
______________
Page Nos.4/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
exercising option for surrender of land and retention of
the land has not yet been reached. At the stage when the
petitioner will be called upon to exercise the option, it
would be open to him, which land he will surrender as
surplus land. If he desires to surrender his share in the
Samuthayam land, it will be for the authorities to decide
whether under the Act such land can be surrendered as
surplus land.
In the view which I have taken, the revision
petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.”

6. As against the dismissal of the appeal, the revision petition under
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 83 of the Tamil
Nadu Land Reforms Act, was filed in the High Court. The said C.R.P.No.801
of 1983 disposed by the High Court on 25.07.1986.
7. The plea of the landowners that the Samudhaya land held by them
should not be taken into account for determining surplus land was rejected by
the High Court, with an observation that the landowner is vested with the option
to choose which land to be surrendered and which land to be retained. If the
landowners desire to surrender their share in the Samudhaya land, it will be for
the authorities to decide whether, under the Act, such land can be surrendered as
surplus land.
______________
Page Nos.5/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
8. Thereafter, the draft statement under Section 10(1) of the Act
published in the Government Gazette dated 27.03.1991, wherein 4.44 acres of
wet land in S.No:233/5 and 0.23 acres of wet land in S.No.236/3 (Part) of
Mudikonadan Village, totally 4.69 standard acres of land, declared as surplus.
9. While fact being so, a suo motu revision was filed by the Director
of Land Reforms to set aside the order of the Authorised Officer,
Mayiladuthurai, passed in MR.I/16(G)/17-70, dated 13.09.1979. The suo motu
revision petition was filed when the matter was at the stage of Section 10(1) of
the Act. Pursuant to the objections filed by the legal heirs of Gurumoorthy Iyer
with regard to the draft statement published in the Government Gazette on
27.03.1991, the Director of Land Reforms, on scrutiny the documents found that
the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Mayiladuthurai had wrongly excluded
17.96 acres of land covered under the two settlement deeds executed in favour
of the wife and daughter-in-law of the deceased landowner, Gurumoorthy Iyer.
The said exclusion is incorrect since the registration of the settlement deeds was
subsequent to the date of the Act came into force and the old stamp papers upon
which the settlement deeds were written had not purchased by the parties to the
deeds and not of recent origin. Apparently, these documents were antedated
______________
Page Nos.6/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
and got registered only after the Act came into force. The manner in which
stamp papers of other persons used to record the settlement exposes the dubious
nature of the deeds created to defeat the purpose of the Act.
10. The Suo Motu Revision Petition was entertained by the Tamil
Nadu Land Reforms (Special Appellate Tribunal). On examining the grounds
raised in the revision and the objections of the landowners, the following points
were framed for determination.
1) Whether this Revision Petition is barred by
limitation?
2) Whether the petitioner is estopped from
contending that the settlement deeds dated 01.01.1970
executed in favour of Janaki Ammal and registered on
16.04.1970 and also the settlement deed dated 01.02.1970
th
executed in favour of the 5 Respondent by name Thaiyu
Ammal and registered on 07.05.1970 were executed to
defeat any of the provisions of this Act and if so, whether
they are void in law?
3) Whether the order of the Authorised Officer
of Land Reforms at Mayiladuthurai dated 13.09.1979 is
liable to be set aside?
4) To what relief is the petitioner entitled?
______________
Page Nos.7/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
11. The primary objection by the landowners that suo motu revision is
barred by limitation was negatived by the Tribunal, since there is no time limit
is prescribed under the Act for filing suo motu revision. Considering the
litigation pending, the delay found not extraordinary. It held the suo motu
revision been filed within reasonable time. With respect to the alleged transfer
of substantial extent of land under the two settlement deeds, the Tribunal,
considering Section 22 of the Act and held that these two transactions in fact
created to defeat the provisions of this Act and had taken place between
15.02.1970 to 02.10.1970. Whether the transaction is bonafide or not, since it is
created to defeat the provisions of the Act, it is void under law.
12. In support of its decision, the Tribunal relied upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Authorised Officer , Thanjavur and
another V.S.Naganatha Ayyar reported in AIR 1979 SC 1487 . In addition to,
reliance was placed on an unreported judgment of the Madras High Court
rendered in C.R.P.No.2706 of 1979, dated 06.07.1981. The Tribunal has also
taken note of the subsequent amendment to Section 22(2) of the Act, which has
been given retrospective effect from 06.04.1960.
______________
Page Nos.8/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
13. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Authorised Officer
13.09.1970 and remanded the matter back to the Authorised Officer for fresh
disposal in accordance with law. As a consequence, on 28.04.2004, the
Authorised Officer, Mayiladuthurai, passed the order under impugned after
giving due opportunity to the parties concerned.
14. The two suspicious transactions; one in favour of Jayalakshmi,
wife of Gurumoorthy Iyer and another in favour of Thaiyu Ammal, daughter-in-
law of Gurumoorthy were examined by the Authorised Officer and the order
was passed as under:
“In the first transaction, the stamp papers
purchased in the name of Jayalakshmi about 10 years age,
have been used. Further in the second transaction the
stamp paper purchased in the name of Theether Hussain
Sahib on 31.01.1970 at Madras had been used at
Mudikondan of Thanjavur District on the very next day. If
the execution of both the transactions really taken place
on the dates indicated in the deeds, the land owner could
have purchased sufficient stamp papers for required value.
The manner in which the other’s stamp papers were used
goes to show the dubious nature of the execution of the
deeds. Therefore, on the verification of the stamp papers
______________
Page Nos.9/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
used in the documents, it is found that the stamp papers
were purchased in the name of third persons in different
places thoroughly not connected to the parties to the
transaction. The transaction attracted the judgement of
the High Court, Madras in C.R.P.No.2706/1979, dated
06.07.1981. This proves doubt that the alleged settlement
deeds were created with a malafide intention. It is also
accepted fact that the stamp papers were purchased at
different places on different names, which led to
suspicious about the correctness of the claim that the
settlements were executed on 01.01.1970 and 01.02.1970
and registered on 16.04.1970 and 07.05.1970 respectively.
In the above circumstances, as per the Tamil
Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act,
1961 as amended by the Tamil Nadu Reforms (Fixation of
Ceiling on Land) Second Amendment Act, transaction
effected through the documents are void and ordered that
the extent noted in the schedule below are ordered to be
included in the holdings of the land owner for the
purposes of determination of his holding as on 15.02.1970.
Name of the District : Nagapattinam.
Name of the Taluk : Nannilam.
Name of the Village : Mudikondan
______________
Page Nos.10/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
Sl.No. Extent
Transferred
Name of the
Name of the
Document
Transferer
Transferee
No and
Dated
232/2 0.91
232/5 4.93
237/7 1.26
K. Gurumoorthy Iyer Janaki Ammal 594/
16.04.1970
232/8 1.17
246/3 2.55
277/2 0.95
11.77
231/1 4.09 K. Gurumoorthy Iyer Tmt.Thaiyu
766 /
07.05.1970
251/3 2.10
Ammal/
W/o.
Krishnasamy
6.19
The total holdings of the landowner are determined as follows:-
Ordinary Acres Standard acres
1. Holdings arrived as per order
under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act
dated 13.09.1979.
24.28 19.690
Add:
Extent transferred to his wife
and daughter in law covered by
Section 22 of the Act
17.96 14.960
11.77
6.19
17.96
Total Holdings as on 15.02.1970 42.24 34.650
Ceiling area admissible 15.000
Surplus 19.650
______________
Page Nos.11/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
I hereby order that an extent of 19.650
standard acres of land declared as surplus and the land
owner is requested to furnish the details of S.No. For the
surplus land within 15 days from the date of receipt of this
order failing which lands will be taken suo motu under
Section 10(3) of the Act and draft statement under Section
10(1) will be published accordingly.
15. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that
the amendment to Section 22 of the Act cannot have retrospective effect from
06.04.1960 in cases where proceedings had already initiated. The state filed suo
motu revision after 21 years is a mockery of the legislation. The assessment of
land held by Gurumoorthy Iyer commenced as early as 1969 and culminated in
the proceedings of the Authorised Officer dated 13.09.1979, whereas, the suo
motu revision No.5 of 2000 under Section 83 of the Act was initiated only on
st
31.03.1997. The time lapse between the 1 order passed by the Authorised
Officer and the suo motu revision filed by the Director is not a reasonable time
rd
for entertaining the suo motu revision. The reasoning given by the 3
nd
respondent/Authorised Officer in the 2 order for rejecting the settlement deeds
is perverse and contrary to law. There is no illegality in executing settlement on
stamp papers purchased in other names, provided the necessary stamp fees paid
and duly registered. Further, the Authorised Officer also failed to take note that
______________
Page Nos.12/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
the landowners were ready to offer his shares in Samudhaya land, which was
duly communicated it vide letter dated 12.02.2004.
16. The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act
1961, commences its operation on 15.02.1970, after the amendment Act
41/1971, Act was notified on 02.10.1970. Whereas, the two settlement deeds
were executed on 01.01.1970 and 01.02.1970, much prior to the date of
commencement. The lands given to the wife and daughter-in-law, being female
members of the family, fall within the definition of ‘Stridhana land’ under
Section 3(42) of the Act. Accordingly, they are entitled to hold 10 standard
acres of land each. While so, the impugned order dated 28.04.2004 passed by
rd
the 3 respondent, declaring that 19.65 standard acres of land as surplus and the
owners to furnish details within 15 days, bristles with arbitrariness.
17. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submitted that the operation of a registered document dates back to the date of
its execution, as provided under Section 47 of the Registration Act. While so,
though the document dated 01.01.1970 was registered on 16.04.1970 and the
document dated 01.02.1970 was registered on 07.05.1970, both date back to the
______________
Page Nos.13/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
date of the execution, which fall away from the crucial date between 15.02.1970
and 02.10.1970.
18. To buttress his argument that the Director has invoked suo motu
powers only to circumvent the period of limitation, the Learned Counsel for the
petitioner rely on the judgment of this Court (i) R.Padmavathi v. The Land
Commissioner (Land Records), Chepauk, Chennai-5 and another , reported in
2001 (3) CTC 605 . In that case, the Division Bench of this Court, in view of the
facts and circumstances, observed as below:
“ 11. Now it is clear that the issue whether the
subsequent order could be passed dated 18.11.1988 on the
backdrop of the order dated 1.12.1973 was a substantial
issue pending before the Land Tribunal. Under such
circumstances, the Special Appellate Tribunal could not
have wiped out the order dated 1.12.1973 much less using
the so called suo motu powers. We are not able to
understand the user of the suo motu powers by the special
Appellate Tribunal. In fact, what was filed before the
Special Land Tribunal was nothing but a revision by the
Director, Land Reforms. In order to get out of the
difficulty of limitation, it is mentioned that the suo motu
powers were being activated. What was filed before the
Tribunal was, in fact, nothing but a revision under section
______________
Page Nos.14/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
83 of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, could not have
ignored the question of limitation as it did. But even if we
can take the view, that the Special Appellate Tribunal
could go into the merits or demerits of the revision, one
fails to understand as to how the Tribunal could have
straight-away wiped out the order dated 1.12.1973 which
order was fait accompli, which was finally passed against
which there was no appeal or revision and which
remained on the record till it was set aside by the Tribunal
by the impugned order dated 28.4.1998. It is liable to be
seen that the said order was referred to in the order dated
18.11.1988 also and yet the order dated 18.11.1988 came
to be passed. Taking a view that all the transactions
entered into by Muthu Reddiar were hit by Section 22 of
the Act and the land disposed of, had to be included in the
holding of Muthu Reddiar.”
(ii) The judgment of this Court in K.R.Arjun and others vs. Asst.
Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode and others, reported in (2010) 3 MLJ
1 , also relied upon, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as below:
“ 39. The suo motu powers granted to the
Tribunal are sought to be illegally invoked by the
respondents 1 and 2 in the case on hand, by trying to make
the Tribunal to sit as an appellate authority over the order
passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, which
has attained finality long before. Such suo motu powers
______________
Page Nos.15/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
have been vested on the Authorities only to achieve the
ends of justice and not to make use of the same as a tool to
harass the parties, against whom they have failed before
the appropriate legal forums, in this case upto the level of
this High Court, and after such orders attaining finality.
Nowhere any explanation has been offered on the part of
the respondents 1 and 2 as to why they have not
challenged either the orders of the Land Tribunals/Sub
Courts passed earlier setting aside the erroneous orders
passed by the Authorised Officers and remitting the
matters back to the Authorised Officer for fresh
consideration, keeping in view the observations made in
those judgments; or the order of the Authorised Officer,
dated 28.2.1977 or even the order of the learned single
Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 10290 of 1982 dated
5.10.1990. If the respondents 1 and 2 are really aggrieved
at the decisions arrived at by the Land Tribunal or this
Court, they should have filed necessary appeals or
revisions before the upper forums of law. Instead of doing
so, now, by the present impugned action, they want to
nullify all the judicial orders passed in favour of the
petitioners, as if wrong orders have been passed by the
judicial forums, including this Court, which should never
be allowed to be perpetrated and such a practice adopted
on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 needs to be
deprecated, particularly when it is not at all the case of
the respondents 1 and 2 that the decision of the learned
single Judge of this Court was nullified either by the
______________
Page Nos.16/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
Division Bench of this Court or the Honourable Supreme
Court.”
19. Regarding the plea to treat the land settled in favour of his wife
and daughter-in-law as Stridhana land, the learned counsel rely on the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in (i) M.Ramakrishnan v. State of
Tamil Nadu , reported in 1979 AIR (SC) 1905 . In that case, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court explained the concept of ‘Stridhana land’ in the context of the
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, as below:
“ 13. The expression “Stridhana land” used in
Section 5(4)(a) has been given a restricted meaning by
Section 3(42) of the Act which defines it as any land held
on the date of the commencement of the Act by any female
member of a family in her own name. Admittedly on the
date of the commencement of the Act i.e. April 6, 1960,
Devika was not the owner of the land in question. She
acquired title to it only on April 20, 1962 on the death of
the testatrix. The appellant cannot, therefore, claim any
benefit under Section 5(4)(a) of the Act. Section 21 of the
Act under which the land in question becomes liable to be
included in the holding of the appellant for purposes of
determination of the surplus land does not make any
difference between Stridhana property of a female
acquired after the commencement of the Act by
inheritance or bequest from any person and any other
______________
Page Nos.17/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
property held by her family. From a reading of the
definition of the expression “Stridhana land” in Section
3(42) of the Act and the provisions of Section 5(4) of the
Act, we are of opinion that the State legislature intended to
extend the concession available under Section 5(4) of the
Act only to the Stridhana property held by a female on the
date of the commencement of the Act and not to property
acquired by her thereafter.
……
15. The learned counsel for the appellant relied
on the decision of the High Court of Madras
in Valliammal v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms,
Coimbatore [AIR 1973 Mad 321: (1973) 1 MLJ 377] in
which a contention similar to the one urged before us on
behalf of the appellant in this case had been accepted. The
facts of that case were more or less similar to the facts in
the case before us. The petitioner in that case was the wife
of one Palanisami Gounder who was in possession of an
extent of 44.061 standard acres, after excluding the
exempted lands, on the commencement of the Act. She
inherited 11.075 standard acres on the death of her son on
March 25, 1962. In the return filed by him, the husband of
the petitioner claimed that he was entitled to retain 30
standard acres as holding of the family and that his wife,
the petitioner in that case, was entitled to hold 10 standard
acres as Stridhana property. The Land Tribunal,
Coimbatore held that since the Act defined “Stridhana
land” as meaning any land held on the date of the
______________
Page Nos.18/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
commencement of the Act by any female member of the
family in her own name and since the petitioner therein
had inherited the land on the death of her son only on
March 25, 1962 i.e. subsequent to the commencement of
the Act, she was not entitled to retain any land as
Stridhana property in addition to the extent of land which
the family could retain under Section 5(1). The petitioner
questioned the correctness of the order of the Tribunal
before the High Court of Madras in CRP No. 916 of 1971.
That petition was dismissed by Ganesan, J., on the ground
that in view of the definition of Stridhana land in Section
3(42) of the Act, the petitioner therein was not entitled to
hold 10 standard acres as stridhana property, in addition
to the 30 standard acres allowed to the family consisting
of herself and her husband. Thereafter a petition was filed
before the High Court by the petitioner therein to review
the order passed by Ganesan, J. The review petition came
up for decision before another learned Judge who allowed
the same by his order dated November 2, 1972. It is on the
decision rendered on the review petition that reliance is
placed by the appellant before us. In para 6 of that
decision, it is observed as follows:
“The learned Judge, who heard the civil
revision petition, mainly relied on the definition of
‘stridhana property’ for holding that no woman is
entitled to hold any stridhana property if the same was
acquired or inherited subsequent to the
commencement of the Act. Of course, Section 3(42)
defines stridhana land as meaning any land held on
______________
Page Nos.19/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
the date of commencement of the Act by any female
member of a family in her own name. But that
meaning is to be adopted, ‘unless the context
otherwise requires’. It has been repeatedly held that
the word in the section will have to be interpreted and
understood in the context in which it is used in the
section and the definition given for that word in the
definition section of the Act could not always govern
the interpretation without reference to the context. In
the context of Sections 5, 7 and 21 and with reference
to the scope and object of the Act, I am of opinion that
the properties inherited by females as stridhana
property subsequent to the commencement of the Act
are also entitled to the benefit of sub-section (4) of
Section 5 of the Act.”
16. It is true that the above passage supports
the case of the appellant but we are of the view that in the
context of Section 21 of the Act it is not necessary to give a
meaning to the expression “stridhana land” different from
what is stated in Section 3(42) of the Act. For the reasons
already stated by us we hold that the aforesaid decision
does not lay down the law correctly. It is also to be
observed that the earlier decision of the High Court of
Madras which is now under appeal does not appear to
have been brought to the notice of the learned Judge who
decided the above case.
17. We, therefore, hold that the High Court was
right in this case in holding that Section 5(4) of the Act
was not applicable to the land in question.”
______________
Page Nos.20/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
(ii) The judgment of this Court in S.R.Ramasami Gounder vs. The
Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Coimbatore reported in 1996 (1) MLJ 241 ,
was also relied upon wherein it was held as below:
“The next contention of Mr.Sundaram Iyer
is that "stridhana land" has been defined in Section 3
(42) as meaning any land held on the date of the
commencement of the Act by any female member of a
family in her own name. It is said that though the land
which she had obtained from her son as heir under the
Hindu Succession Act, is her own property, yet in the
absence of mutation proceedings or a change in the
public register wherein her name has to be substituted
as the owner thereof, it cannot be said to be her
property for the purpose of the ceiling Act. There is a
fallacy in this argument. The earlier portion of the
definition includes any land hold by a female members
as streedhana land "To hold land" has been defined in
Section 3 (19) as to mean with its grammatical
variations and cognate expressions, to own land as
owner or to possess or enjoy land as possessory
mortgages or as tenant etc. Therefore, if a person
owns land, as owner, then he would be a person
deemed to hold such land for the purpose of the Land
Act. The mere fact that there has not been a change in
______________
Page Nos.21/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
the public register so as to substitute her name in the
place of her deceased son would not take away such
holding of Visalakshi Ammal from the mischief of the
Act. I am unable to accept this contention of Mr.
Sundaram Iyer.”
20. For the proposition that the document executed on stamp papers
purchased on different dates cannot be termed as invalid, the learned counsel
rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in
Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal and another , reported in (2008) 2
MLJ 1115 (SC) . In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as below:
11. The trial court and the High Court have
doubted the genuineness of the agreement dated 5-1-1980
because it was written on two stamp papers purchased on
25-8-1973 and 7-8-1978. The learned counsel for the first
respondent submitted that apart from raising a doubt
about the authenticity of the document, the use of such old
stamp papers invalidated the agreement itself for two
reasons. Firstly, it was illegal to use stamp papers
purchased on different dates for execution of a document.
Secondly, as the stamp papers used in the agreement of
sale were more than six months old, they were not valid
stamp papers and consequently, the agreement prepared
on such “expired” papers was also not valid. We will deal
______________
Page Nos.22/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
with the second contention first. The Stamp Act, 1899
nowhere prescribes any expiry date for use of a stamp
paper. Section 54 merely provides that a person
possessing a stamp paper for which he has no immediate
use (which is not spoiled or rendered unfit or useless), can
seek refund of the value thereof by surrendering such
stamp paper to the Collector provided it was purchased
within the period of six months next preceding the date on
which it was so surrendered. The stipulation of the period
of six months prescribed in Section 54 is only for the
purpose of seeking refund of the value of the unused stamp
paper, and not for use of the stamp paper. Section 54 does
not require the person who has purchased a stamp paper,
to use it within six months. Therefore, there is no
impediment for a stamp paper purchased more than six
months prior to the proposed date of execution, being used
for a document.
12. The Stamp Rules in many States provide
that when a person wants to purchase stamp papers of a
specified value and a single stamp paper of such value is
not available, the stamp vendor can supply appropriate
number of stamp papers required to make up the specified
value; and that when more than one stamp paper is issued
in regard to a single transaction, the stamp vendor is
required to give consecutive numbers. In some States, the
Rules further require an endorsement by the stamp vendor
on the stamp paper certifying that a single sheet of
required value was not available and therefore more than
______________
Page Nos.23/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
one sheet (specifying the number of sheets) have been
issued to make up the requisite stamp value. But the Stamp
Rules, 1925 applicable to Tamil Nadu, do not contain any
provision that the stamp papers of required value should
be purchased together from the same vendor with
consecutive serial numbers. The Rules merely provide that
where two or more sheets of paper on which stamps are
engraved or embossed are used to make up the amount of
duty chargeable in respect of any instrument, a portion of
such instrument shall be written on each sheet so used. No
other rule was brought to our notice which required use of
consecutively numbered stamp papers in the State of Tamil
Nadu.
13. The Stamp Act is a fiscal enactment
intended to secure revenue for the State. In the absence of
any rule requiring consecutively numbered stamp papers
purchased on the same day, being used for an instrument
which is not intended to be registered, a document cannot
be termed as invalid merely because it is written on two
stamp papers purchased by the same person on different
dates. Even assuming that use of such stamp papers is an
irregularity, the court can only deem the document to be
not properly stamped, but cannot, only on that ground,
hold the document to be invalid. Even if an agreement is
not executed on requisite stamp paper, it is admissible in
evidence on payment of duty and penalty under Sections
35 or 37 of the Stamp Act, 1899. If an agreement executed
on a plain paper could be admitted in evidence by paying
______________
Page Nos.24/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
duty and penalty, there is no reason why an agreement
executed on two stamp papers, even assuming that they
were defective, cannot be accepted on payment of duty and
penalty. But admissibility of a document into evidence and
proof of genuineness of such document are different
issues.
14. If a person wants to create a backdated
agreement, the first hurdle he faces is the non-availability
of stamp paper of such old date. Therefore, tampering of
the date of issue and seal affixed by the stamp vendor, as
also the entries made by the stamp vendor, are quite
common in a forged document. When the agreement is
dated 5-1-1980, and the stamp papers used are purchased
in the years 1973 and 1978, one of the possible inferences
is that the plaintiff not being able to secure an antedated
stamp paper for creating the agreement (bearing a date
prior to the date of sale in favour of the second defendant),
made use of some old stamp papers that were available
with him, to fabricate the document. The fact that very old
stamp papers of different dates have been used, may
certainly be a circumstance that can be used as a piece of
evidence to cast doubt on the authenticity of the
agreement. But that cannot be a clinching evidence. There
is also a possibility that a layman unfamiliar with legal
provisions relating to stamps, may bona fide think that he
could use the old unused stamp papers lying with him for
preparation of the document and accordingly use the old
stamp papers. ”
______________
Page Nos.25/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
21. The Learned Special Government Pleader representing the
respondents/State, submitted that the statute enables the authorities to seek for
suo motu revision if documents been created dubiously to defeat the purpose of
the Act. In this case, when the matter was at the stage under Section 10(4), the
Director of Land Reforms found that the exclusion of certain land erroneously.
Hence, he rightly invoked suo motu powers to initiate proceedings. The
creation of settlement deeds with old stamp papers purchased by others to defeat
the purpose of the Act had exposed the dubious transactions.
22. Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling
on land) Act, 1961, after its amendment with retrospective effect, reads as
below:
S ecti on 22. Transfer [or partition] made on or
after the date of commencement of this Act, but before the
notified date.-
[(1)] Where, on or after the date of the
commencement of this Act, but before the notified date,
any person has transferred any land held by him by sale,
gift (other than gift made in contemplation of death,)
exchange, surrender, settlement or in any other manner
whatsoever except by bequest [or has effected a partition
of his holding or part thereof] the Authorized Officer
within whose jurisdiction such land, holding or the major
______________
Page Nos.26/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
part thereof is situated may after notice to such person
and other persons affected by such transfer [or partition]
and after such enquiry as he thinks fit to make, declare the
transfer [or partition] to be void if he finds that the
transfer [or the partition as the cease may be] defeats any
of the provisions of this Act.
[(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), if any
transfer or partition has the effect of reducing the extent of
surplus land in excess of the ceiling area, such transfer or
partition, whether bona fide or not, shall be constructed as
defeating the provisions of this Act].
23. Though Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides that the
operation of the registered document will be dates back to the date of its
execution. In this case, the authenticity of the document and the intention of the
documents, created with antedated stamp papers purchased in the names of third
parties are not protected by the judgments relied by the writ petitioner.
24. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned
Counsel for the respondents. Records perused.
______________
Page Nos.27/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
25. Gurumoorthy Iyer was holding a total extend of 42.24 acres of
land as on 05.02.1970. A fact which is not in dispute. On the said date, two
settlement deeds purported to have been executed on 01.01.1970 in favour of
his wife, Janaki ammal and another settlement deed on 01.02.1970 executed in
favour of his daughter-in-law, Thaiyu ammal were not registered and the same
been registered only on 16.04.1970 and 07.05.1970 respectively. Taking
advantage of the language employed under Section 47 of the Registration Act,
the writ petitioner claimed that the transfers covered under these two settlement
deeds dates back to the date of its execution. Hence, according to the petitioner,
the land so transfers fall outside the purview of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act.
26 . It is the further contention of the writ petitioner that the
Authorised Officer, at the first instance, had accepted the transfers and the
dispute was only in respect of the inclusion of Stridhana land held by
Gurumoorthy Iyer. Further case of the petitioner is that, after the order passed
by this Court in C.R.P.No.801 of 1983, dated 25.07.1985 and after the
Government Gazette notification dated 27.03.1991 declaring 4.69 of standard
acres as surplus, the matter had reached its logical end. The only contentious
issue is that whether the Samudhaya land held by Gurumoorthy Iyer to be taken
______________
Page Nos.28/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
into account between the landowner and the Government.
27. While so, the suo motu revision entertained by the Tribunal and
holding the settlement deeds as void transactions by order dated 09.01.2001 and
the consequential order passed by the Authorised Officer on 23.04.2004
identifying the land in surplus is apparently an act of perversity to circumvent
legal impediments of limitation and estoppel. The landowners, in fact, were
ready to surrender their shares in the Samudhaya land vide letter dated
11.02.2004, wherein they communicated to the Assistant Commissioner (Land
Reforms) that they had been allotted 1.59 acres of land as their share in the
Samudhaya land, which they were ready to give up. However, the impugned
rd
order by the 3 respondent passed on 28.04.2022 identifying 4.44 acres of wet
land in S.No.233/5 and 0.23 acres of wet land in S.No.236/3 (part) of
Mudikondan village.
28. Though this argument superficially convincing on deep
examination, we find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thiruvengadam Pillai
(cited supra) , while dealing with document engrossed on old stamp papers
purchased on different dates, has held that there is no expiry date for stamp
______________
Page Nos.29/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
papers. However, the possibility of antedating documents using the old stamp
papers cannot be ruled out and those facts can be a piece of evidence to cast
doubt on the authenticity of the document. Though it is not a clinching
evidence, in this case both the documents were not only engrossed on old stamp
papers but also not purchased by the parties to the transaction. This double
suspicion, coupled with the fact that Section 22(2) of the Act which provides
that any transfer, even if it is bonafide, but done with intention to defeat the
provisions of the Act, the said document deemed to be void, gains significance.
29. The facts of this case is very unique and the principles laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts in the judgments relied by
the writ petitioner are of no relevance. The Tribunal, in its order passed in
Special Revision Petition No.5 of 2000, had gone in depth and had met all the
objections raised by the landowners. The primordial consideration before the
tribunal was whether the two settlement deeds were created to defeat the
purpose of the Act or otherwise.
30. Gurumoorthy Iyer was holding nearly 45 acres of land and had
filed his return in the prescribed form, seeking exclusion of the lands transferred
______________
Page Nos.30/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
to his family members as well as the land held by him commonly along with
others in respect of Samudhaya land. The total extent of Samudhaya land held
by Gurumoorthy Iyer, as per the record is about 8.96 acres.
31. On scrutiny of the two suspicious documents reveal that the
settlement deed in favour of Janaki ammal, dated 01.01.1970 is written on the
stamp papers purchased on 19.03.1960 i.e., 10 years prior to the date of
execution of the document and the stamp been purchased in the name of one
Jayalakshmi. Similarly, the settlement deed in favour of Thaiyu Ammal,
executed on 01.02.1970 was written on stamp papers purchased on 31.01.1970
in the name of Thaather Usain Sahib and registered on 07.05.1970. The time
gap between the date of purchase of the document, the date of execution of the
deeds and the date of registration, coupled with the fact that the commencement
of the Act was on 02.10.1970, has to be tested not merely in the light of Section
47 of the Registration Act alone but in the light of Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu
Land Reforms Act, also since it is a Special Act for the purpose of preventing
excess landholding.
______________
Page Nos.31/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
32 . The Act clearly emphasises that any transfer, even if it is bonafide
made with intention to defeat the purpose of the Act, the said transfer has to be
held void. While testing the documents in the light of Section 22 of the Act and
on considering the fact that the identification of the surplus land and extent of
surplus land had not reached finality on the date of initiating application for suo
motu revision, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the
Tribunal in the suo motu revision and the consequential order passed by the
Authorised Officer are well within the scope and ambit of the Act. Any other
interpretation will be resulting in defeating the provisions of the Act and the
very purpose for which it was legislated.
33. As a result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
( Dr . G.JAYACHANDRAN , J. ) & ( SHAMIM AHMED, J. )
02-06-2026
Index :Yes.
Neutral Citation :Yes.
bsm
______________
Page Nos.32/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
To,
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Land Reforms,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3. Authorised Officer and Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Mayuranathar Keezhaveethi,
Mayiladuthurai – 609 001.
______________
Page Nos.33/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )

W.P.No.14073 of 2004
Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
&
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
bsm
Pre-Delivery order made in
W.P.No.14073 of 2004
& W.M.P.No.16589 of 2004
02-06-2026
______________
Page Nos.34/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:37:48 pm )