CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. The Special Commissionerand Commissioner for Urban LandCeiling and Land Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 30-04-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.11859 of 2004G.Rajendran.. Petitioner.Versus1.The Special Commissionerand Commissioner for Urban LandCeiling and Land Tax, Ezhilagam,Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.2.The Assistant Commissioner,Competent Authority,Urban Land CeilingNo.159, Sannathi Street,Adambakkam, Alandur,Chennai-600 016... Respondents.Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records pertaining tothe impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.976/95-A, dated13.3.1995, served to the petitioner, on 30.12.2003 and quash thesame, consequently direct the respondents to re-notify the landscomprised in Old Survey Nos.147/1-A-2, 147/2-A, New Survey Nos.147/1-A-1, 147/1-A-2-B to an extent of 0.11.5 and 0.05.5 Hectaresrespectively situated at Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk,Kancheepuram District as absolute lands of the petitioner and hisfamily member.For Petitioner : Mr.A.RamuFor Respondents : Mr.S.Sivashanmugam Government AdvocateO R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The petitioner has stated that he is having landed propertyin Old Survey Nos.147/1-A-2, 147/2-A, (New Survey Nos.147/1-A-1,147/1-A-2-B) to an extent of 0.11.5, 0.05.5 hectares, respectively,bearing patta No.520, at Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk,Kancheepuram District.3. It had been purchased by the father of the petitioner, LateGopal Naidu, by way of two sale deeds, dated 12.12.1969 and15.7.1957, registered as Document Nos.2776 of 1969 and 1880 of 1957,registered at the Sub Registrar's office, Saidapet, Chennai. The saidlands had been purchased by late Gopal Naidu from the sons and grandsons of late Munusamy Naidu. Munusamy Naidu had died, on 3.11.1936,prior to the purchase. From the date of purchase late Gopal Naidu wasin absolute possession and enjoyment of the property, after effectingthe mutation entries in his favour, with Patta No.520. Thereafter,his name had been entered in all the revenue records, including thechitta and adangal extracts issued by the Village AdministrativeOfficer, Pallikaranai Village. The petitioner's father Gopal Naiduhad died, on 18.7.1998. Since then the petitioner and his familymembers are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property.While so, the second respondent had passed the impugned order, inNa.Ka.No.976/95-A, dated 13.3.1995, in the name of late MunusamyNaidu, who had died, on 3.11.1936.4. It has been further stated that the second respondent and hismen had served the impugned order on the petitioner, on 30.12.2003,informing him that they would take physical possession of the land,pursuant to the acquisition proceedings. Even though the impugnedorder, dated 13.3.1995, was in the name of Munusamy Naidu, it wasserved on the petitioner only on 30.12.2003. The passing of theimpugned order in the name of a dead person, namely, Munusamy Naidu,shows the non-application of mind by the respondents, while passingthe said order. Even otherwise, on the coming into force of theTamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, witheffect from 16.6.1999, the impugned acquisition proceedings wouldstand abated and the petitioner and the members of his family areentitled to the benefit, under Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. In such circumstances, thepetitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court,under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents,the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has beenstated that Munusamy Naidu was the owner of the land in S.No.147/A,measuring an extent of 2000 Sq.Mts. As the land owner did not filethe return, under Section 7(1) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceilingand Regulation) Act, 1978, notice under Section 7(2) had been issuedto him, in SR.No.345/85, dated 31.7.1988, requesting the urban land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ owner to file the return in respect of the said land. Section 7(2)notice had been served on the urban land owner, on 1.12.1988, inperson. However, the urban land owner had neither filed the return,under Section 7(1) of the Act, nor made any representation, withregard to the notice, under Section 7(2), issued to him. Hence, basedon the report of the Deputy Tahsildar concerned, a notice, underSection 9(4) and the draft statement, under Section 9(1) of the Act,had been issued, on 29.12.1994 and it was sent to the urban landowner by registered post, with acknowledgement due. The urban landowner had not appeared for the enquiry. Therefore, the land inquestion was inspected by the then Assistant Commissioner (ULT),Alandur and it was found that the land was vacant. As there was norepresentation from the urban land owner, an order, under Section 11of the Act, had been passed, declaring 1500 Sq.Mts., as the excessvacant land, after allowing 500 Sq.Mts., towards the familyentitlement, in Proc.No.976/95(A), dated 15.3.1995 and it had beensent by registered post, with acknowledgement due. The saidproceedings had been received by the urban land owner. The finalstatement, under Section 10(1) of the Act, had been issued on3.10.1997. As the urban land owner's address was not known, it wasserved by affixture. Thereafter, the notification, under Section 11(1) of the Act had been issued, on 19.1.1998 and the notification,under Section 11(3) of the Act, had been issued, on 8.5.1998. It hasalso been stated that the final notice, under Section 11(5) of theAct, had been issued in the second respondent's officeRef.No.Rc.976/95(A), dated 19.9.1998, directing the urban land ownerto surrender the excess vacant land. The excess vacant land,measuring 1500 Sq.Mts., in S.No.147/1A1 and 147/1A2B of PallikaranaiVillage, had been acquired and the possession was handed over to theRevenue Inspector, on 31.12.1998.6. It has been further stated that the land acquisitionproceedings had been initiated in the name of Munusamy Naidu, as perthe records available in the office of the respondents. Since theland owner did not file his return, under Section 7(1) of the Act, anotice under Section 7(2) of the Act had been issued, on 31.7.1988,in the name of Munusamy Naidu and it was served on his relative, on1.12.1988. Since the urban land owner had neither filed the returnnor made any representation on the notice issued under Section 7(2)of the Act, the notice, under Section 9(4) and 9(1) of the Act, hadbeen sent to the urban land owner by Registered post, withacknowledgement due. However, the land owner had not appeared for theenquiry. Therefore, orders had been passed by the competentauthority, under Section 9(5) of the Act, on 10.3.1995 and it hadbeen sent to the land owner, by registered post, with acknowledgementdue and he had filed an appeal, dated 16.4.1995, before the firstrespondent. Thereafter, the excess vacant land had been acquired andpossession had been handed over to the Revenue Inspector, on3.12.1998. Since the entire acquisition proceedings, as per the Tamil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had beencompleted before the coming into force of the Tamilnadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, with effect from16.6.1999, the land acquisition proceedings cannot be said to haveabated. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it isdevoid of merits. 7. In view of the contentions raised by the learned counselappearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents,and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it isseen that the entire land acquisition proceedings had been initiatedand proceeded with in the name of late Munusamy Naidu, who is said tohave died, on 3.11.1936. 8. The claim of the petitioner that the land in question hadbeen purchased by one late Gopal Naidu, the father of the petitionerfrom the sons and grand sons of late Munusamy Naidu, has not beenrefuted by the respondents. Further, the respondents have notdisputed the fact that the land acquisition proceedings had beenproceeded against Munusamy Naidu. However, there is nothing on recordto show as to how the notices, under the relevant provisions of theTamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had beenserved on a dead person, and as to whether such service could betaken to be proper service on the urban land owner, whose land hadbeen acquired, by invoking the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. The contention of the learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that, since the landowner had not filed his return, under Section 7(1) of the Act,inspite of Section 7(2) notice having been issued to him and since norepresentation had been made thereafter, the respondents hadproceeded with the land acquisition proceedings, cannot be a validground to sustain the said proceedings, which had been proceeded withagainst a dead person. Further, there is nothing on record to showthat actual physical possession had been taken over by therespondents, pursuant to the said acquisition proceedings. The amountof compensation for the land, said to have been acquired by therespondents, had not been paid to the urban land owner. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondentsit has been stated that an order, under Section 9(5) of the Act, hadbeen passed declaring 1500 Sq.Mts. as excess vacant land, afterallowing 500 Sq.Mts towards family entitlement, in accordance withthe proceedings, dated 15.3.1995. It has been further stated that thesaid order had been received by the urban land owner, as it had beensent by registered post, with acknowledgement due. Further, it hasalso been stated that a final statement, under Section 10(1) of theAct, had been issued, on 3.10.1997. Since the urban land owner'saddress was not known it had been served by affixture. Thereafter,the notification, under Section 11(1) of the Act, had been issued, on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19.1.1998, and the notification, under Section 11(3) of the Act, hadbeen issued, on 8.5.1998. However, the claim of the respondents thatthe urban land owner's address was not known and therefore, theorder, under Section 9(5) of the Act and the final statement, underSection 10(1) of the Act, had to be served by affixture, has not beensubstantiated with necessary records. 10. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered viewthat the impugned land acquisition proceedings cannot be sustained inthe eye of law. Therefore, the land acquisition proceedings,culminating in the impugned order of the second respondent, dated30.12.2003, is quashed. The prayer of the petitioner, relating to there-notification of the land in question, is denied. However, it isopen to the petitioner to work out his rights, flowing from thisorder, in the manner known to law. Accordingly, the writ petitionstands allowed, to the extent noted above. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1.The Special Commissionerand Commissioner for Urban LandCeiling and Land Tax, Ezhilagam,Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.2.The Assistant Commissioner,Competent Authority,Urban Land CeilingNo.159, Sannathi Street,Adambakkam, Alandur,Chennai-600 016.1 cc To Mr.A.Ramu, Advocate, SR.20519.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.20242.Writ Petition No.11859 of 2004 CK(CO)RVL 02.06.2009