2002 Supreme(Mad) 1289

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN
Sri Mudaliambal Trust - Appellant
Versus
The Anna University and Others - Respondents
W.P. NOS. 29077, 29078, 29530, 31790, 31811, 31857, 32020 TO 32022, 32034, 32036, 32067, 32090, 32096, 32239, 32359 & 32814 OF 2002
Decided On : 08 November 2002

The acquisition of land by a public trust without prior permission under Section 37 B of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 is prohibited and invalid, and the land stands transferred to the State Government as a penalty for such contravention.

Headnote:

LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTION 37 B - PRIOR PERMISSION FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND - AFFILIATION OF ENGINEERING COLLEGES - APPROVAL OF AICTE - MANDAMUS - WRIT PETITION - HELD, DENIAL OF AFFILIATION BY UNIVERSITY FOR WANT OF PERMISSION UNDER SECTION 37 B OF THE LAND REFORMS ACT IS LEGAL AND VALID - ACQUISITION OF LAND WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION IS VOID AND LAND STANDS TRANSFERRED TO STATE GOVERNMENT - APPROVAL OF AICTE DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND REFORMS ACT - WRIT PETITIONS DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

17 writ petitions were filed by various educational trusts seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the orders of the Anna University denying affiliation to their engineering colleges for the academic year 2002-2003 for want of prior permission under Section 37 B of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. The petitioners contended that the University acted illegally and in excess of its authority in insisting for the production of permission under Section 37 B of the Land Reforms Act, that the AICTE which had granted approval for establishment of the colleges had not raised such an objection, and that such objection cannot be raised by the University. The University and the State Government contended that the petitioners were prohibited from acquiring any land for the purpose of establishing an educational institution without prior permission under Section 37 B, that the acquisition of land by the petitioners without such permission was invalid and the land stood transferred to the State Government, and that the approval of AICTE did not override the provisions of the Land Reforms Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the denial of affiliation by the University for want of permission under Section 37 B of the Land Reforms Act was legal and valid. The Court found that the acquisition of land by the petitioners without prior permission was prohibited and invalid, and the land stood transferred to the State Government. The Court also held that the approval of AICTE did not override the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The Court dismissed the writ petitions.

Issues: 1. Whether the denial of affiliation by the University for want of permission under Section 37 B of the Land Reforms Act was illegal and arbitrary? 2. Whether the University acted illegally and in excess of its authority in insisting for the production of permission under Section 37 B of the Land Reforms Act? 3. Whether the acquisition of land by the petitioners without prior permission was void and the land stood transferred to the State Government? 4. Whether the approval of AICTE overrode the provisions of the Land Reforms Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the denial of affiliation by the University for want of permission under Section 37 B of the Land Reforms Act was legal and valid because: a. The acquisition of land by the petitioners without prior permission was prohibited and invalid under Section 5 of the Land Reforms Act. b. The land acquired by the petitioners stood transferred to the State Government as a penalty for such contravention. c. The petitioners were not in possession of any land, much less, lawfully so as to enable them to establish a college or an educational institution. d. The University was well within its authority to insist for the production of permission under Section 37 B of the Land Reforms Act as a condition for affiliation. 2. The Court held that the University did not act illegally and in excess of its authority in insisting for the production of permission under Section 37 B of the Land Reforms Act because: a. The University had the authority to enforce compliance of statutory provisions and regulations, including the requirement for permission under Section 37 B of the Land Reforms Act. b. The insistence of the University for the production of permission under Section 37 B was not arbitrary or unreasonable, but was necessary to ensure that the petitioners were in lawful possession of the land and had the requisite infrastructure to establish and run the engineering colleges. 3. The Court held that the acquisition of land by the petitioners without prior permission was void and the land stood transferred to the State Government because: a. Section 5 of the Land Reforms Act prohibited the acquisition of land by public trusts without prior permission under Section 37 B. b. The acquisition of land by the petitioners without such permission was in violation of Section 5 of the Land Reforms Act and was, therefore, void. c. As a penalty for such contravention, the land acquired by the petitioners stood transferred to the State Government with effect from the date of acquisition. 4. The Court held that the approval of AICTE did not override the provisions of the Land Reforms Act because: a. The two enactments operated in two different entries, fields, and were enacted by the competent legislature. b. There was no conflict between the two enactments, as the Land Reforms Act regulated possession or holding of the land, while the AICTE Act regulated the establishment of a professional course or college or standards of such education, etc. c. The AICTE had overlooked the provisions of the Land Reforms Act before according approval for establishment of the engineering colleges to the petitioner trusts, and hereafterwards it would give appropriate instructions or take action in this respect to avoid such contingency.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions.