C.S. Sampath and ors. Vs. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Kancheepuram - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
property - family land - sections 3 (14), 5, 7, 21-a and 22 of tamil nadu land reforms (fixation of ceiling of land) act, 1961 - appeal against order of high court deciding that land settled by appellant in favour of grandchildren be clubbed with inherited land for purpose of proceedings under tamil nadu land reforms (fixation of ceiling of land) act, 1961 - high court came to conclusion after interpretation of family as per section 3 (17) - fining of high court based on law and does not require interference. - a.p. urban areas (development) act, 1/1975. natural justice: [s.b. sinha & markandey katju, jj] exclusion or inapplicability of principles of natural justice held, the principles of natural justice may not be applicable in a given case unless a prejudice is shown. the application of the said principles is not necessary where it would be a futile exercise. where the selection of the appellant employee was illegal as he was ineligible to be considered for appointment, the cancellation of his appointment without affording any opportunity of hearing to him by the visitor of the university concerned (i.e. president of india), held, was proper. labour & services appointment: [s.b. sinha & markandey katju, jj] invalid/illegal appointment distinguished from irregular appointment held, if an appointment is irregular, it can be regularized. but if it is illegal (made violating articles 14 and 16 of the constitution and statutory rules), it is non est in the eye of the law and is a nullity. equity jurisdiction of the supreme court would not be invoked in a case of illegal appointment. sympathy should not be misplaced recruitment; recruitment process eligibility conditions determination of eligibility (pertaining to educational qualification in the present case) cut-off date for necessity for held, in order to avoid any uncertainty in such matters, fixation of a cut off date is a must. however, in the absence of any cut-off date specified in the advertisement or in the rules, the last date for filing the application must be considered as a cut-off date. in the instant case, the appellant did not hold the requisite qualification as on the said cut-off date. hence, he was not eligible for the post in question.order1. srinivasa was the original landholder. c.s. sampath, the appellant herein, is srinivasa's son. srinivasa transferred the land in dispute to his four grandsons and one unmarried granddaughter (children of c.s. sampath) by a settlement dated 29-9-1970. the question before the high court was whether the land settled by srinivasa on his grandchildren could be clubbed with the land inherited by c.s. sampath for the purposes of the proceedings under the tamil nadu land reforms (fixation of ceiling of land) act, 196.1 (the act). upholding the findings of the authorities under the act, the high court answered the question in the affirmative and against the appellant. this appeal by c.s. sampath is against the judgment of the high court. 2. we have heard mr a.t.m. 'sampath, learned counsel for the appellant. he has taken us through the judgment of the learned single judge of the high court. the learned judge referred to sections 3(14), 5, 7, 21-a and 22 of the act and came to the conclusion that the land which was settled on the grandchildren has to be clubbed with the land inherited by the appellant for the purposes of the proceedings under the act. the learned judge reached the finding on the interpretation of the expression 'family' as defined under section 3(14) read with other provisions of the act. we see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the high court. we agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein. the appeal is dismissed. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Srinivasa was the original landholder. C.S. Sampath, the appellant herein, is Srinivasa's son. Srinivasa transferred the land in dispute to his four grandsons and one unmarried granddaughter (children of C.S. Sampath) by a settlement dated 29-9-1970. The question before the High Court was whether the land settled by Srinivasa on his grandchildren could be clubbed with the land inherited by C.S. Sampath for the purposes of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act, 196.1 (the Act). Upholding the findings of the authorities under the Act, the High Court answered the question in the affirmative and against the appellant. This appeal by C.S. Sampath is against the judgment of the High Court.

2. We have heard Mr A.T.M. 'Sampath, learned counsel for the appellant. He has taken us through the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The learned Judge referred to Sections 3(14), 5, 7, 21-A and 22 of the Act and came to the conclusion that the land which was settled on the grandchildren has to be clubbed with the land inherited by the appellant for the purposes of the proceedings under the Act. The learned Judge reached the finding on the interpretation of the expression 'family' as defined under Section 3(14) read with other provisions of the Act. We see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.