ORDER
V. Ratnam, J.
1. This civil revision petition at the instance of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli, is directed against the judgment of the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) Tirunelveli, in C.M.A. (L.T.) No. 12 of 1980, in and by which the Land Tribunal held differing from the Authorised Officer that the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reform’s (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 58 of 1961 in respect of an extent of 12,500 standard acres. In the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 against the respondent, he was allowed to hold an extent of 42,630 standard acres inclusive of the lands in respect of which exemption was granted under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961. The respondent was also directed to file a return in Form 2 under Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1970, but he did not do so, the details of his holdings were called for and collected with the help of the field staff and notice of enquiry under Section 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1970 was issued to the respondent. The respondent, amongst others, claimed that he was entitled to the benefit of exemption in respect of 12,500 standard acres, which had already been exempted while computing the holdings of the respondent in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961. Dealing with this claim of exemption, the authorised Officer held that the benefit of the exemption provided under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 had been withdrawn with effect from 15-1-1972 by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Amendment Act 41 of 1971, and, therefore, the extent of 12,500 standard acres was not eligible for exemption and in that view, included that extent in the holdings of the respondent for purposes of computing the holding and declaring the surplus. Aggrieved buy this, the respondent preferred an appeal in C.M.A.(L.T.) No. 2 of 1980 before the Land Tribunal (Sub Court) Tirunelveli. The Land Tribunal took the view that as the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1971 did not purport to take away the benefit of the exemptions already given, the Authorised Officer was in error in including the extent of 12,500 standard acres as part of the holdings of the respondent and that that extent has to be excluded. Consequent upon the conclusions so arrived at, the Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the deletion of the extent of 12,500 standard acres from the holdings of the respondent. It is the correctness of this that is challenged by the petitioner in this civil revision petition.
2. Learned Government Advocate contended that the benefit of exemption provided for under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 had been omitted by the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1971, with effect from 15-1-1972 and the respondent cannot claim that despite such omission, he would still be entitled to the benefit of exemption. It was also further submitted that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1971 took within its sweep all exemptions in existence on 15-1-1972 and did away with the exemptions themselves and, therefore the extent of 12,500 standard acres should be included in the ceiling area of the respondent. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no indication in the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1971, that its provision s covered even exemptions available prior to 15-1-1972 and that there was also nothing to indicate that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1971 were intended to be operative from a date anterior to 15-1-1972, and, therefore, the benefit of exemption would still be available to the respondent. Reliance in this connection was also placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent on the decision in Venkatakrishna Naidu v. Authorised Officer, L.R. 90 L.W.530 : 1977-1. M.L.J.119.
3. The main question that arises for consideration is, whether the claim for exemption granted under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 could be availed of by the respondent even after the omission of Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 by the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1971. It must be noted that exemption is a creature of the statute. There cannot be any presumption either in favour of an exemption or a right thereto. It is for the person claiming the benefit of an exemption to establish not only its availability, but also to make out that he had fulfilled the conditions on which the benefit of such exemption could be claimed. It has. however, to be remembered that there cannot be a right to claim an exemption even when the exemption itself had been done away with by legislative process. In this case, Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 under which the respondent was granted an exemption in respect of 12,500 standard acres, stood omitted with effect from 15-1-1972 as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1971 read with the notification issued under Section 1(2) thereof. It has, therefore, to be taken that on and from 15-1-1972 the benefit of any exemption under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 cannot be had by any one, even if such a benefit was available prior to that date. Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 originally stood as follows-
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if any person has, on the date of the commencement of this Act, held land used exclusively for grazing and assessed to land revenue at Rs. 1.25 and below per acre, he shall be entitled to hold such grazing land, upto an extent of 50 acres in addition to the ceiling area.
Section 3(11) of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1971 provided
Section 74 and 75 of the Principal Act had been omitted
The effect of omission of Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 will be that a person will not be entitled to hold grazing lands under Section 74 of the said Act in addition to the ceiling area. Even on the assumption that the benefit of exemption was available under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961, it would have been so available only till 14-1-1972, and not thereafter. If on that footing proceedings had been initiated and concluded prior to 15-1-1972, then, the benefit of exemption under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 could have been claimed and countenanced as well. However, on the omission of Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 with effect from 15-1-1972, the exemption provision itself was omitted obliging the concerned authorities functioning under the Act to give effect to the withdrawal of exemption by initiating appropriate proceedings with reference to the altered situation arising out of the withdrawal of the exemption. In this case, the authorities have merely recognised at the stage of passing orders under Section 9(2)(b) in the matter of the computation of the holdings of the respondent in accordance with the Act, the altered situation and have given effect to the withdrawal of exemption. In other words, instead of making available the exemption till 14-1-1972, and subsequently initiating proceedings on its withdrawal with reference to unexempted lands on the from 15-1-1972, the authority has telescoped the two stages of proceedings into one giving effect to the nonavailability of the exemption under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 and proceeded on that footing. The withdrawal of the exemption under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1971 has not been couched in such language as to cover cases of exemption availed or granted till 14-1-1972. Even though the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1971 could not be construed as tantamounting to the withdrawal of exemption since the inception, it has to be borne in mind that a prospective withdrawal effective from 15-1-1972 would also take within its sweep all exemptions which were available or had been granted upto 14-1-1972, and this is not necessarily an instance of withdrawal of the exemption retrospectively. A statute operating in future can take within it sweep exemptions granted already and availed of and looked at from the point of view, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1971 did away with all exemptions either granted future all such exemptions. It would also be useful in this connection to refer to the decision in Thirumathi Rajam Sivasubramaniam alias Muthu Meenakshi Veeralakshmi Nagammal v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, 92 L.W. 527 where Ismail, J. (as he then was) had occasion to consider identical question. Therein, it has been laid down that once Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu 58 of 1961 had been deleted from the statute book the result will be, whether proceedings were initiated earlier or later, or whether the order was passed before or subsequently, a person will not be entitled to hold the grazing land provided for under Section 74 in addition to the ceiling area and the moment Section 74 was taken out of the statute book even if the proceedings had already come to an end, under the unamended Act, the person who was entitled to hold the land under Section 74 in addition to the ceiling area will have to part with the land and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that in view of the omission of Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961, the land owner would not be entitled to any relief. The aforesaid principle would govern this case as well. It only remains to refer to the decision in Venkatakrishan Naidu v. Authorised Officer (1977)1 M.L.J. 110 strongly relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent. In that case, the withdrawal of exemption under the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1971, has been interpreted to be only prospective and in that view, it was held that as the Authorised Officer was determining the ceiling area as on 15-2-1970, he has necessarily to proceed on the basis that Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 is also on the statute book and that it might be open to the Authorised Officer to initiate separate proceedings in view of the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1971, taking away exemption granted under the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961. It is difficult to understand this decision as stating that the benefit of the exemption under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961, would continue to be available even after 15-1-1972, despite the omission of Section 74 from the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961, as otherwise, it would not have been observed that separate proceedings in view of the amended provision could be initiated, bearing in mind the non-availability of exemption under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961. As pointed out earlier, in the proceedings taken against the respondent, the state of affairs with reference to the exemption as they stood prior to 15-1-1972 and subsequently had been taken not of in one and the same proceeding and the non-availability of the exemption on and from 15-1-1972 had also been considered to arrive at the conclusion that the extent of 12.500 standard ares could not be held by the respondent as lauds exempted under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961, though that provision was omitted by the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1971. The Land Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the respondent was entitled to hold 12,500 standard acres in addition to the ceiling area.
4. Consequently, the civil revision petition is allowed, the judgment of the Land Tribunal is set aside and the order of the Authorised Officer will stand restored with costs throughout.