T.V.Antony v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:23-01-2009Coram:The Honourable Mr.Justice M.JAICHANDRENW.P.No.1863 of 2003T.V.Antony.. Petitioner.Versus1.State of Tamil Nadurep. By its Secretary to GovernmentRevenue Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Commissioner,Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation andUrban Land Tax, Chepauk,Chennai-5.3.The Assistant Commissioner,Urban Land Tax, Tambaram,No.169, Sannadhi Street,Adhambakkam, Chennai-88... Respondents.Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entirerecords in connection with the Government Order in G.O.(Per) No.513Revenue (Na.Ni.U 2(1)) Department, dated 28.11.2002, of the firstrespondent and quash the same and consequently, forbear the respondentsfrom in any way interfering with the rights of the petitioner's peacefulpossession and enjoyment of the lands in Survey No.43/2B 1 of PulikoraduVillage, Saidapet Taluk, Kancheepuram District, to an extent of 3900Sq.Meter (1 acre and 2 cents) pursuant to the Repealing Act 20/99repealing the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy Senior Advocate for Mr.M.Sriram For Respondent : Mr.P.Muthukumar Government Advocate (R1 – R3) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RHeard the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner andthe learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.2. It has been stated that the lands in Survey No.43/2B-1A ofPulikoradu Village of Tambaram had been purchased by A.Heera, the vendorof the petitioner, on 17.1.62, under Document No.92/1962, on the file ofthe Sub-Registrar, Tambaram. The lands are agricultural lands. Thepetitioner had purchased 1 acre and 2 cents of punja lands from a largerextent of the agricultural lands belonging to A.Heera, by a registeredsale deed, dated 13.12.80, registered as Document No.6010 of 1980, onthe file of the Sub-Registrar, Tambaram. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner's vendor,A.Heera, had filed a return, under the provisions of the Tamilnadu UrbanLand (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, in respect of her urban lands.The authorities concerned, while considering her claims, had alsoincluded the agricultural lands belonging to her, as if they wereforming a part of her urban lands. The petitioner's vendor, while filingthe return, had prayed for exemption of the entire properties. It islearnt that orders had been passed by the erstwhile Board of Revenue, on30.3.80, recommending to the Government to reject the request forexemption and to determine the ownership, as on 3.8.76, and to proceedfurther, under Sections 9 to 11 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceilingand Regulation) Act, 1978. 4. It has been further stated that the petitioner's vendor by aletter, dated 8.1.81, had reported that she had sold the property to thepetitioner, on 13.12.80. In spite of such intimation the authoritiesconcerned were treating the petitioner's vendor as the land owner andhad proceeded with the acquisition proceedings, in spite of herobjections. After the proceedings, under Section 9(1) of the Tamil NaduUrban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been taken, ordershad been passed, on 12.10.81, and it had been served on the petitioner'svendor, on 20.10.81. The petitioner's vendor had filed an appeal statingthat she had parted with her interest in favour of the petitioner, inthe year, 1980, itself. However, the authorities concerned had publishedthe notification and had made a declaration, under Section 11(3), on10.10.84, alleging that the excess vacant lands had vested with theGovernment, with effect from 8.10.84. 5. It has been further stated that the notice, under Section 11(5)of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, hadbeen served on the vendor of the petitioner, on 8.2.85, and papertransfers seem to have been made, as if possession of the land inquestion had been handed over, on 28.5.87, in spite of the fact that thepetitioner has been in effective possession and enjoyment of the saidproperty, from the date of its purchase, by constructing tenaments andby installing a crusher unit in the said land. Further, a Church has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also been located in the land for the use of the members of theChristian community of the area. Further, the revenue records relatingto the property for the fasli 1399, relating to the year 1990, showsthat the land in question had been treated as agricultural lands and ithad continued to be so till the date of the filing of the writ petition. 6. It has also been stated that the petitioner had transferred thepatta in his name, on 25.3.81, in respect of the land in SurveyNo.43/2B-1, to an extent of 1 acre and 2 cents, in Pulikoradu Village,Tambaram. The petitioner has put up constructions on the land and hadalso planted coconut trees. A Church is also located in the land.Therefore, the said land would not come under the purview of theprovisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1978. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an application forexemption, as a precautionary measure, in the year, 1986. Even thoughthe application had been acknowledged, on 23.10.86, the State Governmenthad not done anything in furtherance of the said request. Therefore, thepetitioner was constrained to file a writ petition before this Court, inW.P.No.4374 of 1989, praying for a writ of mandamus to forbear therespondents therein from acquiring and dispossessing the petitioner fromhis land, comprised in Survey No.43/2B 1A of Pulikoradu Village,Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpat District, without following the provisions ofthe Act. By an order, dated 24.4.98, this Court had directed therespondents therein to take proceedings, in accordance with theprovisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1978, after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to put forthhis claims. It is only after the said order had been passed by thisCourt, the third respondent had issued a letter, dated 10.12.99,requesting the petitioner to appear for an enquiry, under Section 21(1)(g) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. Thepetitioner had appeared for the enquiry, and his statement had beenrecorded. While so, the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1978, had been repealed by the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Repeal Act, 1999, with effect from 16.6.99 and therefore,all the proceedings, which were pending, had abated. Since there was noresponse from the respondents the petitioner was under the impressionthat the entire proceedings had been dropped. However, the thirdrespondent had issued a letter, dated 2.7.2001, asking the petitioner toappear before him for regularising the sale deed. The petitioner hadsubmitted a detailed reply, on 13.7.2001, which was acknowledged by thethird respondent, on 18.7.2001. Instead of considering the reply of thepetitioner, the third respondent had issued a notice, dated 7.8.2001, toappear before him, on 14.9.2001. Meanwhile, the objections raised by thepetitioner had reached the third respondent. The third respondent hadinsisted on the regularisation of the sale of the land, according towhich the petitioner became the owner of the land in the year, 1980.While so, the petitioner was shocked to receive the order issued by thefirst respondent, in G.O.No.513, Revenue Department, dated 28.11.2002,setting aside the sale made in favour of the petitioner by A.Heera, thevendor of the petitioner, in the year, 1980. In such circumstances, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents ithas been stated that, A.Heera, residing at 20/2, Nellan Ponnappa MudaliStreet, Chennai, had filed return in Form-I, under the Tamil Nadu UrbanLand (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, on 21.1.77, with the requestfor exemption of the properties, mentioned in the return, from theoperation of the Act. During the enquiry by the competent authority, itwas found that the property sought to be exempted was the subject matterof a civil litigation. Therefore, a report had been sent to the Directorof Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, on 14.3.80, suggesting thatthe petitioner may be advised to renew her request after the disposal ofthe civil litigation. Accordingly, the erstwhile Board of Revenue (UrbanLand Ceiling and Urban Land Tax), in Ref.C3/3987/77, dated 30.3.80, hadrecommended to the Government that the request for exemption be rejectedand instructions were issued to the competent authority to determine theownership, as on 3.8.76, and to proceed with the acquisitionproceedings, under Sections 9 to 11 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. While so, A.Heera, by her letter,dated 6.1.81, had reported that she had sold the property to oneT.V.Antony, on 13.12.80. The competent authority had informed thepurchaser that the sale, having been done in violation of the provisionsof the Act, would be treated as null and void. Despite the issue ofanother notice, dated 30.6.81, received by her, on 2.7.81, she had notattended the enquiry. The competent authority had declared an extent of3900 Sq.Mts., in S.No.42/2B-1, of Pulikoradu Village, as surplus vacantland held by A.Heera. After due service of the statement, under Section9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978,dated 23.5.81, on the Urban Land owner, on 1.6.81, an order, underSection 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1978, had been passed, on 12.10.81. The order, dated 12.10.81, had beenserved on T.V.Antony, on 20.10.81. The urban land owner, A.Heera, hadappealed against the said order to the Commissioner of Land Reforms, bya letter, dated 16.2.83. The said appeal had been dismissed by theCommissioner of Land Reforms, in reference D.Dis.J2/6745/83, dated11.7.83. Thereafter, a notification, under Section 11(1) of the TamilNadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been approved bythe Commissioner of Land Reforms, in D.Dis.31442/83, dated 10.1.83, andit had been published in the Tamilnadu Gazette, dated 25.11.83. Thefinal notification, under Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been published, on 10.10.84.Thereafter, the excess vacant land had vested with the Government, witheffect from 8.10.84. The notice, under Section 11(5) of the Tamil NaduUrban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been acknowledged bythe urban land owner, on 8.2.85. The possession of the acquired excessvacant land, measuring 3900 Sq.Mts. in S.No.43/2B-1 of PulikoraduVillage, had been handed over, on 28.5.87. The notice, under Section 12(7) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, hadbeen issued and it had been acknowledged by the land owner, on 9.6.87. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In her reply, dated 30.6.87, A.Heera, had declared that she had nointerest over the said property, as she had already sold the land toT.V.Antony and therefore, she had prayed for exemption of the land fromthe acquisition proceedings. The competent authority had issued anorder, dated 7.11.87, in Rc.D.120/87, specifying the amount calculated,under Section 12(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Act, 1978. The initial payment had been sent to the urbanland owner, A.Heera. However, A.Heera had reiterated her stand statingthat the property in question had been sold to T.V.Antony, in the year,1980. On enquiry, T.V.Antony had admitted that he had purchased the landmeasuring 1 acre and 2 cents, in S.No.43/2B-1, from the urban landowner, A.Heera, vide Document No.6810, dated 13.12.80, and that he hadconstructed a terrace building for his residence and he had installed acrusher unit in the said land. He had also stated that a Church had beenconstructed by the members of the Christian community of the area. Hehad further stated that 38 coconut trees were existing in the land.However, he had declared that at the time of the purchase it was avacant site and that the structures were put up only in the year, 1982.Thus, it was clear that the property had been deliberately sold by itserstwhile owner, A.Heera, in violation of the provisions of the Act andtherefore, the said transaction is null and void. 8. It has been further stated that T.V.Antony had filed a writpetition before this Court, in W.P.No.4374 of 1989, challenging theacquisition of the excess vacant land, stating that he had purchased theland from A.Heera, as per Document No.6010/80, dated 13.12.80 and thatan exemption may be granted as he had installed a stone crushing unit inthe said land. By an order, dated 24.4.98, this Court had allowed thewrit petition with a direction to give adequate opportunity to put forthhis claim. In letter W.P.R.32/95, dated 20.2.2000, a detailed report hadbeen sent, narrating the history of the case, since there is noprovision in the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) RepealAct, 1999, to grant exemption. The Government, in its letterNo.4385/ULC-II(2)99-8, Revenue, dated 8.3.2001, had requested the caseto be examined in the light of the orders of the Government, inG.O.Ms.No. 353, Revenue, dated 30.6.2000 and to send a report thereon.In Letter Rc.No.B/738/2001, dated 3.10.2001, a report had been sent tothe Government stating that, in G.O.Ms.No.353, Revenue, dated 30.6.2000,the Government had issued instructions that the encroachments on theacquired lands, used for commercial purposes, may be regularised, on thecollection of double the guide-line value. Hence, T.V.Antony had beenrequested to appear for an enquiry in the matter. He had filed a writtenstatement, dated 9.7.2001, stating that the land in question had been inhis possession from the date of its purchase in the year, 1980 and that,by an order of injunction granted by this Court, his possession of theland had been protected. Further, the Special Appellate Tribunal forland reforms had categorically stated that wherever possession had notbeen taken, the entire proceedings would stand abated. Since T.V.Antonyhad taken such a stand, a report had been sent stating that he was notinterested in regularising the land in the light of the orders passed by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.353, Revenue, dated 30.1.2000. TheGovernment, in G.O.Ms.No.513, Revenue, ULC2(1) Department, dated28.11.2002, had informed the petitioner that the purchase of the land bythe petitioner, on 13.12.80, is after the commencement of theproceedings, under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1978, and therefore, it is null and void, as per Section 6 of thesaid Act. Hence, there is no provision to consider the request forexemption. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had relied onthe decisions of this Court in V.Somasundaram and others Vs. TheSecretary to Government, Revenue Department and Others (2007(2) L.W.109)and the decision of this Court in Om Prakash and others Vs. TheGovernment of Tamil Nadu and others (MANU/TN/9871/2007), wherein it hasbeen held that the land acquisition proceedings would stand abated,since the notice, under Section 11(5) of the Act, had been issued to theerstwhile owner of the property and not to those who were the realowners at the time of the taking over of the possession. 10. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of thisCourt, reported in Saraswathi and another V. The Principal Commissionerand Commissioner of Land Reforms (2007(4) CTC 714), wherein it had beenheld that the land acquisition proceedings would stand abated, if therespondents are not in a position to show that actual physicalpossession of the land in question had been taken over by therespondents and due compensation had been paid to the urban land ownerconcerned. 11. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, aswell as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available beforethis Court, it is seen that the respondents had initiated the landacquisition proceedings, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu UrbanLand Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1978, in respect of the land in SurveyNo.43/2B-1 of Pulikoradu Village, Saidapet Taluk, Tambaram District, toan extent of 3900 Sq.Mts. However, it is clear that the respondents hadproceeded with the acquisition proceedings against the erstwhile ownerof the said land, A.Heera, in spite of the fact that the petitioner hadpurchased the said land from her, by a registered sale deed, dated13.12.80. It is also seen that the petitioner had filed a writ petitionbefore this Court, in W.P.No.4374 of 1989. By an order, dated 24.4.98,this Court had allowed the writ petition, with a direction to therespondents, to give adequate opportunity to the petitioner to put forthhis claims. Thereafter, the petitioner had been requested to appear foran enquiry, during which he had filed a written statement, dated9.7.2001, stating that the land has been in his possession and enjoymentsince the date of its purchase in the year, 1980 and that there is noneed for examining the matter in the light of the orders issued by theGovernment, in G.O.Ms.No.353, Revenue, dated 30.6.2000, by which theGovernment had issued instructions that the encroachments on acquiredlands, used for commercial purposes, may be regularised, on collection https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of double the guide line value. It is not in dispute that the entireland acquisition proceedings had been taken by the respondents onlyagainst the erstwhile owner of the land, namely, A.Heera, the vendor ofthe petitioner. No notice had been issued to the petitioner, with regardto the land acquisition proceedings, as contemplated by the provisionsof the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978.Further, actual physical possession of the land in question had not beentaken by the respondents, as seen from the records placed before thisCourt. Further, the compensation for the land, alleged to have beenacquired, had not been paid to the petitioner, as contemplated under theAct. 12. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents had not been in a position to show that the provisions ofRule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules,1978, had been followed by the respondents before the final order hadbeen passed, acquiring the land, said to have been purchased by thepetitioner, in the year, 1980, by way of a registered sale deed, dated13.12.1980.13. In such circumstances, the land acquisition proceedings,initiated by the respondents, in respect of the land in the possessionof the petitioner, would stand abated, in view of the coming into forceof the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.cshTo.1. The Secretary to GovernmentState of Tamil NaduRevenue Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Commissioner,Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation andUrban Land Tax, Chepauk,Chennai-5.3.The Assistant Commissioner,Urban Land Tax, Tambaram,No.169, Sannadhi Street,Adhambakkam, Chennai-88. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ + 1 CC to Mr.M.Sriram,Advocate,SR.3105+ 1 CC to Government Pleader,SR.3583W.P.No.1863 of 2003GV(CO)EM/12.2.09