High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN
Simpson and General Finance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government Revenue Department & Another - Respondents
W.P. No. 19002 of 2003 and W.P.M.P. No. 17525 of 2006
Decided On : 04 September 2006
(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.)
By consent of counsel on both sides, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. The prayer in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records comprised in proceedings bearing R.C. 5468/92/A on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, ULT, Madhavaram/2nd respondent dated 13.03.2003 and to quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents or any other Officers or Subordinates under the respondents from interfering with the lawful possession of the petitioner in respect of the lands declared as excess vacant land and measuring an extent of 1,38,970 sq.mts. and comprised in T.S. Nos. 2, 9, 10, 20, 21, 23 and 27 of Sembium, lands in T.S. Nos. 1/3 and 1/7 of Peravallur Village and lands in T.S. Nos. 843, 844 and 847 at Madhavaram Village in the guise of po9wer under Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 as repealed by Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
The petitioner is a company, which owns urban lands in T.S. Nos. 2, 9, 10, 20, 21, 23 and 27 of Sembium Village; T.S. Nos. 1/3 and 1/7 at Peravallur Village and T.S. Nos. 843, 844 and 847 at Madhavaram Village. The petitioner company applied for exemption of their excess lands held by it to an extent of 1,38,970 sq.mts. in the said Villages under Section 20 (1) (a) of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978, which was by then in force. The Government, considering the petitioner's bonafide request granted exemption. The said exemption was extended upto 17.03.2003 by G.O.Ms. No.215 dated 18.03.1998. It is stated that the petitioner company has fully utilised the excess vacant land at Sembium Village and Peravallur Village for laying the main approach roads, branch roads connecting the factories and its sister concerns in the industrial complex at Sembium and also installed electrical lines, telephone lines, storm water drainage and sewerage disposal channel on both sides of the road. There are two natural ponds lying within the exempted area which could not be used for construction of any building and the same was required for storing of water for the existing lands, for fire fighting and also for rain water harvesting. It is stated by the petitioner that they are fully utilising the excess land as set out in the Government Order issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. In Madhavaram Village, in T.S. No. 843, 844 and 847 the excess vacant land has full of debris and sand and the petitioner company had spent substantial amount and constructed a compound wall running 2000 feet with 11 feet height. The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act was passed, which came into force from 16.06.1999. While things are such as stated above, the Assistant Commissioner/second respondent herein has issued a notice dated 14.06.2000 calling upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 28.06.2000 at 11.00 a.m. in his office with details of utilisation of the excess vacant land, which is exempted under Section 21 (1) of the Act. The second respondent also issued another communication dated 21.07.2000 stating that any violation of the conditions of exemption order would result in withdrawing such exemption and directed the petitioner to furnish the details as per Section 3 (3) of Act 20 of 1999. The petitioner also sent their reply dated 02.08.2000 stating that in view of Section 3 (1) (b) of the Repeal Act, 1999, no action be initiated under Section 21 (2) of the Act. Even after the said reply, the respondents, without passing any orders issued similar show cause notice and the petitioner also sent suitable reply denying the averments, however, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the notice dated 13.03.2003 issued by the second respondent in this writ petition, wherein it was mentioned thus:-
"In
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.