Back
2002 Supreme(Mad) 105
High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Jayasi mha Babu
Allind Metal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., 37 Vellachery Road, Madras-42 rep. by its Managing Director
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George Madras
W.P.No.8684 of 1995 and W.M.P.No.13822 of 1995
Decided on : 15-02-2002
Important Points
Subject
Land Law - Repeal of Land Regulation Act
Act Referred
Headnote
Repeal of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act - Possession and Proceedings - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act has been repealed by the repealing Act (Act 20 of 1999) and all pending proceedings also having been declared to have abated. The petitioner had the benefit of an interim order protecting his possession, and the respondents did not take possession.
Finding of the Court:
The writ petition is allowed, and the W.M.P. is closed.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: As per the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Angoori Devi v. State of U.P., JT 2000 Supp 1(SC) 295, if the possession of the land had not been taken prior to the repeal, such possession cannot be taken thereafter and no proceedings can be thereafter initiated under the repealed enactment.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, and the W.M.P. is closed.
Mr.P.B. Balaji, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.S.T.S. Murthy, Special Government Pleader for Respondent.
1. The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act has been repealed by the repealing Act ( Act 20 of 1999) and all pending proceedings also having been declared to have abated. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Angoori Devi v. State of U.P., JT 2000 Supp 1(SC) 295, a decision by a Constitution Bench, if the possession of the land had not been taken prior to the repeal, such possession cannot be taken thereafter and no proceedings can be thereafter initiated under the repealed enactment. During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner had the benefit of an interim order protecting his possession. It is also not the case of the respondents that they have taken possession.
2. Thewrit petition is therefore allowed. The W.M.P. is closed.
