(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, to implead the petitioner as respondent No.4 in CRP. No.667 of 2025.)

1. The Miscellaneous Petition has been taken out by the petitioner seeking to implead itself as 4th respondent, in the above revision.

2. I have heard Mr.P.Vijendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Sendhil Narayanan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.V.Ramesh, learned Government Advocate for respondents 2 and 3. There is no appearance on the side of the 4th respondent.

3. Mr.Vijendran, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the proposed respondent was formed for the welfare of the marginalised people comprising of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes and insofar as the present litigation is concerned, Mr.Vijendran, learned counsel would contend that Saravambakkam Village, Kanchipuram District and now Chengalpet District was comprising of predominantly wet agricultural lands and an extent of 58 acres and 80 cents was set apart for large irrigation tanks and also smaller extent of 13 acres 7 cents was set apart for Thangal. Excess vacant lands have been acquired from the land owners, in order to distribute the same to the landless poor. In such proceedings arising, landlords have approached this Court challenging the Appeal proceedings on the file of the Land Tribunal.

4. Mr.Vijendran, learned counsel would contend that the marginalised Sections comprised of poor and innocents agriculturalists who were ignorant of even their rights and entitlement to being allotted house sites and grazing lands. According to learned counsel, lands which are to be allotted for the landless poor have been encroached upon by the petitioner and others and the proposed respondent has been making various representations seeking action to be taken against the landlords and their families who have indulged in land grabbing and trespassing into Government lands. The learned counsel would further invite my attention to various legal steps taken by the proposed respondent to safeguard the interest of the landless poor. He would further state that even pending the proceedings before the second respondent, the proposed respondent sought to implead itself as a party. However, without considering the request for impleadment, the impugned order was passed on 01.04.2024. The learned counsel Mr.Vijendran, would contend that the revision itself is not maintainable as the petitioner ought to have filed a revision only under Section 82 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act, 1961. He would therefore state that the proposed respondent will be best suited to highlight all these aspects and assist the State Authorities in having the revision dismissed. The learned counsel would therefore pray for the impleading petition being allowed.

5. Per contra, Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned Senior Counsel would state that the proposed respondent is neither a proper nor necessary party in the above revision petition. Mr.Manoharan, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the revision petitioner has only challenged the revision insofar as the entitlement of the revision petitioner to hold excess lands and in these proceedings, the proposed respondent who claims to espouse the cause of the landless poor does not deserve any audience. Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned Senior Counsel would also contend that in order to determine the entitlement of the revision petitioner to hold excess lands, the proposed respondent is not having any role to play and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the Miscellaneous Petition for impleading the proposed respondents. He would also rely on the following decisions, in support of his submissions:

                     (i) Susila Devi Ammal and others Vs. State of Madras, reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 462;

                     (ii) Speedline Agencies, rep. By its Proprietrix Smt.Dhinoo S.Hataria, Coimbatore Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, in 1993/W.A. No.1177/92.

                     (iii) S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs vs. Jegannath (Dead) by LRs and others, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 and

                     (iv) Dilip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/revision petitioner.

7. The revision petition has been filed by the first respondent herein, challenging the incorrect determination of the surplus extent of lands held under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act, 1961. The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram, after enquiry, held that an extent of 7.783 standard acres was held in surplus. An appeal therefrom was preferred under Section 78 of the Act. In and by the proceedings in RC. No.19425/2012/L2 dated 01.04.2024, the Land Tribunal viz., the DRO, Chengalpet District modified the order of the Assistant Commissioner and held that the excess land which was liable to be proceeded against was an extent of 0.262 standard acres. It is the said 0.262 standard acres which was directed to be distributed to the landless poor under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus) Rules, 1965.

8. Aggrieved by this order, the revision petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. Contending that the proposed respondent is going to add value in deciding the revision petitioner, Mr.Vijendran, learned counsel has made his submissions. He also took me through the various Writ Petitions that have been filed in this regard and also the attempt to get the proposed respondent impleaded even before the Assistant Commissioner. It is therefore, the contention of the proposed respondent that they are proper and necessary parties to the revision petition.

9. Per contra, it is the specific argument of Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned Senior Counsel that in order to determine the actual extent of surplus lands, the land owners alone are entitled to be heard and none else. He would therefore state that the impleadment of the proposed respondent was totally unnecessary and would only add to unnecessary confusion. In fact, Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned Senior Counsel in the course of the argument would also invite my attention to the order passed in W.P. No.31794 of 2023, which was a Writ Petition filed by the proposed respondent herein. The Hon’ble First Bench of this Court by order dated 14.08.2025, finding that the order passed by the Land Tribunal which was already subject matter of this revision and that the Writ Petitioner himself had claimed to have filed a revision under Section 82 of the Land Reforms Act, 1961 which is pending before the Commissioner of Land Reforms, held that the proposed respondent cannot be allowed to file a Public Interest Litigation, raising the same issue.

10. Referring to this order Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned Senior Counsel would further state that the claim of the proposed respondent that they have filed revision under Section 82 of the Act is also false and baseless as the proposed respondent is not entitled to file any such revision in the first place and there is absolutely no proof forthcoming from the proposed respondent that such a revision has been filed and that the same is pending.

11. The revision has been preferred before this Court only invoking Section 115 of CPC. Section 83 of the Act provides for such a revision as against the decision of the Land Tribunal, subject to provisions of the Section 79 of the Act. Therefore, the argument that the revision is not maintainable is untenable. In any event, the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner under the Act were challenged before the Land Tribunal which is deemed to be a Civil Court under the Land Reforms Act of 1961. The aggrieved party, by such decision of the Land Tribunal was certainly, only the revision petitioner, land owner and none else. Merely because, excess lands are to be distributed to landless poor will not give any right to the proposed respondent to get themselves involved in the revision. The question of determination of surplus lands is purely a matter of concern between the State and the Land owners. Therefore, the petitioner however is neither a proper nor necessary party in the revision.

12. In Susila Devi Ammal’s case (referred herein supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the revision against decision of the Land Tribunal was permissible under Section 83 of the Act. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Speedline Agencies’s case (referred herein supra), in a case arising under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, for declaration of when land as excess, held that it would be a matter only between the Government and the owner. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, are more or less similar to the provisions of the Land Reforms Ceiling Act, 1961. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench would squarely apply to the facts of the present case as well.

13. Though Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned Senior Counsel would also rely on the decisions of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu and Dalip Singh’s case (referred herein supra), where the Courts have come down heavily on abuse and fraud, I do not think it is even necessary for me to deal with these decisions insofar as the present impleading application is concerned, as I have already found that the proposed respondent is neither a proper nor necessary party.

14. In fine, there is no merit in this petition and Consequently, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.