Writ Petition No. 5874 of 2004 · Madras High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 29-04-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.5874 of 2004 andW.P.M.P.No.6861 of 20041.V.Balaguru2.Tmt. Ranjitham3.Tmt. Sivagamasundari4.Tmt. Tamil Selvi5.Tmt. Muthammal6.Tmt. Gomathi7.Ms.Santhi.. Petitioners. Versus1.The Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Tax and CompetentAuthority of Urban Land CeilingTirunelveli Area, Tirunelveli.

The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Commissionerand Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai-600 009... Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari, to call for the connected records of the 1st respondentrelating to his order in his proceedings A4/1269/99, dated 23.10.2003pursuant to his notice in Ref. No.A4/1269/99, dated 3.6.2002, andquash the same so far as the petitioners are concerned. For Petitioners : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for M/s.A.L.GandhimathiFor Respondents : Mr.S.Sivashanmugam Government AdvocateO R D E RHeard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, the learned Senior counsel, appearingon behalf of the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of thefirst respondent, dated 23.10.2003, issued pursuant to the notice, dated 3.6.2002, relating to the acquisition proceedings in respectof the lands belonging to the petitioners, in R.S.No.520/2 and 520/3,in Keela Veeraraghavapuram Village and to quash the same. 3. It has been stated by the first petitioner that thepetitioners 2 to 7 are the legal heirs of one Ramakrishnan, who wasthe co-owner of the property in question. The petitioner and the saidRamakrishnan had held an extent of 4.65 acres of agricultural landsat Tirunelveli. While so, the first respondent had initiated theacquisition proceedings, under the provisions of the Tamilnadu UrbanLand (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, by issuing the notice, under Section 7(2) of the Act. Challenging the said notice, two writpetitions were filed before this Court, in W.P.No.14625 of 1989 andW.P.No.13458 of 1989, wherein, interim stay of the proceedings hadbeen ordered, by an order, dated 11.1.1990. During the pendency ofthe writ petitions, Ramakrishnan had died, on 25.4.1992.

It has been further stated that an amendment had been made inthe Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978,constituting a Special Appellate Tribunal to deal with the mattersarising under the Act. Accordingly, the writ petitions, pending onthe file of this Court, had been transferred to the Special AppellateTribunal and re-numbered as T.R.P.No.1 of 2001 and T.R.P.No.2 of2001, respectively. The Special Appellate Tribunal had passed acommon order, dated 30.10.2001, holding that the possession of theexcess vacant lands had been taken over by the Government, on19.9.1989, two days prior to the filing of the writ petitions beforethis Court and therefore, the land acquisition proceedings cannot besaid to have abated. Accordingly, the petitions before the SpecialAppellate Tribunal had been dismissed.

It is contended by the petitioners that the authorities, underthe Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had nottaken possession, in accordance with the statute and no compensationhad been paid, as seen from the notice issued by the firstrespondent, in Ref.A4.1269/99, dated 3.6.2002. While dismissing thepetitions, by its order, dated 30.10.2001, the Special AppellateTribunal had not applied its mind, nor had it considered the issueregarding the character of the land, which was agricultural in natureand therefore, the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceilingand Regulation) Act, 1978, could not have been invoked. Therefore, the notice issued, under Section 7(2) of the Act, requiring thepetitioners to file the returns, without considering their objectionsand the passing of the orders, under Section 9(5) of the Act, declaring an extent of 1.28.0 hectares or 12,800 Sq.Mts, inR.S.No.520 of Keela Veeraraghavapuram Village as the excess vacantland, is irregular and invalid. Further, the subsequent proceedings, under Sections 10(1) and 11(3) of the Act, without service of noticeon the petitioners, as contemplated under Rule-8 of the Tamilnadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978, and the act of therespondents in issuing the notice, under Section 11(5) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, directingthe petitioners to surrender possession of the land to the DistrictCollector, within 30 days of the service of the notice, are alsoarbitrary, illegal and contrary to law. The claim of the respondents, with regard to the taking over of the possession of the land inquestion, without issuing the required notices, under Sections 11(5)and 11(6) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1978, would be illegal and void.

It has also been stated that the notice, dated 3.6.2002,issued by the first respondent, in Ref.A4.1269/99, under Section 12(7) of the Act, would also be void, in view of the coming into forceof the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,1999. Rule 11 of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Rules, 1978, deals with the determination of the amount and thedisposal of the cases by the competent authority, under Sub-Section 7and 8 of Section 12. Even though the first respondent had declared, under Section 11(3) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, that the excess vacant land is deemed to havevested with the State Government, with effect from 12.7.1989, thenotice, under Section 12(7) of the Act, had been issued by the firstrespondent, only on 3.6.2002. In view of the Tamilnadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, all pending proceedingswould be deemed to have abated, as per Section 4 of the Repeal Act. Therefore, the petitioners have presented a representation to thefirst respondent and the second respondent, on 8.7.2002, requestingthem to drop further action in the matter, on the ground that thepossession of the land in question was with the petitioners and as nocompensation had been paid to the petitioners. In spite of thedirections issued by this Court, in W.P.No.23706 of 2003, to passappropriate orders on the representations of the petitioners, dated8.7.2002, the first respondent by his order, dated 23.10.2003, hadrejected the request of the petitioners. The said order has beenchallenged by the petitioners in the present writ petition.

The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalfof the petitioners are that the impugned proceedings of the firstrespondent, dated 23.10.2003, is arbitrary, illegal and void. Thefirst respondent had failed to note that the Repeal Act grantscertain rights to the owners of the land where physical possession ofsuch land continues to be with its owner, as statutory vesting wouldbe of no relevance. Further, Sub Clause (b) of Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, specifically makes a provision to refundthe compensation and to retain the possession of the land, if suchpossession had continued to remain with the land owner. Further, whenthe first respondent had issued a notice, dated 3.6.2002, invitingthe petitioners to appear before him, with regard to the payment ofcompensation, payable under Section 12 of the Principal Act, therecan be no doubt that the compensation for the land, said to have beenacquired by the respondents, had not been paid to the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

In view of the various communications between the petitionersand the District Collector, in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 11(5) of the Principal Act, it would be clear that thepossession of the land in question had not been taken by therespondents, within the time limit fixed under the said notice. Inthe absence of the notice, under Section 11(6) of the Principal Act, it cannot be construed that the possession had been taken over fromthe petitioners, as contemplated under the Principal Act. Since theland in question was agricultural in character, the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, could nothave been invoked by the respondents for acquiring the land belongingto the petitioners.

By merely recording in the files that possession had beentaken over, the respondents cannot claim that the petitioners havelost possession of their land. Actual physical possession should havebeen taken over by the respondents in order to disentitle thepetitioners from making further claims. Since actual physicalpossession had not been taken over by the respondents and since thecompensation for the land in question had not been paid to thepetitioners, the land acquisition proceedings would be deemed to haveabated, in view of the coming into force of the Tamilnadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, on 16.6.1999. In suchcircumstances, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 3.6.2002 and 23.10.2003, are liable to be set aside and therespondents may be directed to hand over the possession of the landin question to the petitioners.

No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of therespondents. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents had submitted that the respondents had followed theprocedures prescribed under the provisions of the Tamilnadu UrbanLand (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, in respect of the lands inquestion and the proceedings had been completed by taking over thepossession of the land, on 12.7.1989. The compensation due to theowners of the lands had also been kept in the revenue deposit. Further, the said lands had been handed over to the Tamil Nadu SlumClearance Board, and the buildings had been constructed in the saidland after being allotted to various persons. In such circumstances, the petitioners had come before this Court belatedly, questioning theland acquisition proceedings, without any merits. Therefore, thepresent writ petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of meritsand therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.