Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(Mad) 3056

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
M/s. Sree Jayalakshmi Brick Industries, Represented by its Proprietor Rama Bhagavad Dasa Alias G. Ramamoorthy
Versus
The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Revenue Department & Others
W.P.No.1584 of 2009 & M.P.No.2 of 2009
Decided on: 07-08-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:V. Ramesh, R.C. Paul Kanagaraj, Advocates.
For the Respondents: G. Desingu, Special Government Pleader.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of serving notice under Section 11(5) and the necessity of actual take over of possession under Section 11(6) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978.

Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act - Land Acquisition - Section 11(5), Section 11(6) - [Land Acquisition] - [Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, Section 11(5), Section 11(6)] - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 11(5) and Section 11(6) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. The court emphasized the requirement of serving notice under Section 11(5) to the person in possession and the necessity of actual take over of possession under Section 11(6). The court also highlighted the significance of physical possession and the implications of non-compliance with the provisions, ultimately influencing the decision to quash the acquisition.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner purchased land and sought exemption under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. The land was acquired by the government without serving notice under Section 11(5) and without actual take over of possession under Section 11(6). The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash the acquisition.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was not served with notice under Section 11(5) and the actual take over of possession did not occur as required by Section 11(6). The court held that the proceedings under the Act must be held to have abated in view of Section 4 of the Repealing Act 20 of 1999.
Issues: Non-service of notice under Section 11(5), absence of actual take over of possession under Section 11(6), and the abatement of proceedings under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of serving notice under Section 11(5) to the person in possession and the requirement of actual take over of possession under Section 11(6). The court also relied on the implications of non-compliance with the provisions and the abatement of proceedings under the Act.
Final Decision: The order of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal was quashed, and all the proceedings under the Act were held to have abated in view of Section 4 of the Repealing Act 20 of 1999. The writ petition was allowed.

Judgment

D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.

1. The writ petitioner purchased the land comprised in Survey Nos.141/1, 141/2A, 142/1 and 142/2 measuring an extent of 1.88 acres, 0.92 acres, 2.77 acres, 0.98 acres and 2.92 acres respectively, in all an extent of 9.97 acres in Ayanambakkam Village, Poonamallee Taluk, during 1980 by way of two sale deeds dated 04.09.1980 from one Thiru. A.L. Sreeramulu and three others.

2. The vendors manufactured bricks at the said lands in the name and style of M/s. Sree Jayalakshmi Brick Works. According to the petitioner, he continued the manufacturing of bricks in the changed name viz., M/s. Sree Jayalakshmi Brick Industries.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he sought exemption from the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by making an application under Section 21 of the Act. According to him, he did not receive any orders on his application.

4. While so, according to the petitioner, he received a memo under Section 39 of the Act to show cause why prosecution could not be made for contravening the Act. Only thereafter, he came to know that the third respondent acquired lands under the Act and a notification dated 06.06.1990 under Section 11(1) of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 11.07.1990 and later a notification dated 08.08.1990 under Section 11(3) of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 12.09.1990 vesting the excess land with the Government. As per those notifications, the excess land was 73 Ares in Survey No.141/1, 31 Ares and 5 Sq.mts. in Survey No. 141/2A2, 1 Hectare 17 Ares in Survey No.141/2C, 39 Ares and 5 Sq.mts in Survey No. 142/1 and 2 Hectares and 1 Ares in Survey No.142/2.

5. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.19602 of 1992 before this Court to quash the aforesaid notifications dated 11.07.1990 and 12.09.1990. The writ petition was transferred to Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal and was renumbered as T.R.P.No.313 of 1999. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal dismissed the T.R.P.No.313 of 1999 on 110. 2000.

6. This writ petition is against the said order of the Tribunal confirming the acquisition made by the respondents by notifications dated 11.07.1990 and 12.09.1990.

7. We heard the submissions made on either side. The learned Special Government Pleader has produced the entire records for our perusal.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that though the third respondent was aware of the purchase of the concerned lands by him in the year 1980 itself, no notice was issued to him under Section 11(5) of the Act. He further argued that the Tribunal erred in holding that the petitioner need not be given notice under Section 11(5) of the Act as the sale in 1980 is hit by Section 6 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the word “any person” used in Section 11(5) of the Act. He further contended that any person who is in possession of the land is entitled to notice to surrender or deliver possession to the Government. He heavily relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Sathasivam as he then was) in V. Somasundaram and others Vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and others reported in 2007(1) MLJ 750. Paragraph No. 9 of the said judgment is heavily relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which is extracted here-under:

"9. From the perusal of the file it is clear that proceedings were initiated against the third respondent, who is the erstwhile owner of the lands in question, in respect of transfer of his land to the appellants herein. Section 11(5) notice was also issued to the third respondent, who was not the real owner. As per Section 11(5) of the Act, the competent authority is bound to issue notice in writing to any person, who may be in possession of the l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document