Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2617
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
R. Murali & Others
Versus
The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Reforms & Another
W.P.Nos.9541, 9575 & 9576 of 2004 & W.P.M.P.No.1139 of 2004 in W.P.No.9541 of 2004
Decided on : 07-06-2011
For the Petitioners:N. Damodaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M. Dhandapani, Spl. G.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for due process in serving notice under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, failure of which renders the proceedings and any possession taken as illegal, leading to a constitutional infringement of the affected parties' rights.
Headnote:
Illegal Possession - Urban Land Ceiling Act - Section 9(5), Section 11(1), Section 11(3), Section 7(2), Section 9(1), Section 12(7), Section 12(6) - The court discussed the illegal possession of land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, emphasizing the failure of the respondents to serve notice to the original owner and subsequent purchasers, leading to the vitiation of the proceedings and declaring any possession taken as illegal. The judgment highlighted the constitutional infringement of the petitioners' rights and their predecessor in title due to the respondents' actions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to set aside the respondents' actions under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, claiming illegal possession of their land. They argued that the land was agricultural and not subject to acquisition under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents' failure to serve notice to the original owner and subsequent purchasers rendered the proceedings illegal, leading to the vitiation of the original proceedings and declaring any possession taken as illegal. The court emphasized the constitutional infringement of the petitioners' rights and their predecessor in title.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the respondents' actions under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the failure to serve notice to the landowner and subsequent purchasers, and the constitutional infringement of the petitioners' rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the respondents to follow due process by serving notice to the original owner and subsequent purchasers, leading to the vitiation of the proceedings and declaring any possession taken as illegal, in violation of the petitioners' rights and their predecessor in title.
Final Decision: All three writ petitions were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and no costs were awarded. The petitioners were entitled to enjoy the property without any interference from the respondents due to the Repealing Act T.N.20 of 1999.
1. In all the three writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for calling of the records of the respondents dated 30.12.1994 made under Section 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act as well as the notification issued under Section 11(1) dated 14.02.1996 and the notification under Section 11(3) dated 12.06.1996 and after setting aside the same seeks to forbear the respondents from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the lands comprised in Old S.No.49/1 (New S.NO.82/2) and Old S.No.49/2 (New S.No.82/2) of various extents belonging to the petitioners situated in Mathura Velappan Chavadi, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur district and the proceedings should be declared to have been abated in the light of T.N.Act 20 of 1999 where the Urban Land Ceiling Act was repealed.
2. The first writ petition was admitted on 08.04.2004. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing the possession of the property of the petitioner, if not already taken over. Subsequently, the other two writ petitions namely W.P.Nos.9575 and 9576 of 2004 came to be filed and they were admitted on 08.04.2004. Pending that writ petitions, an interim order restraining the respondents from taking possession of the property, if not already taken over was granted.
3. Aggrieved by the subsequent interim orders, the respondents have filed WVMP Nos.823 of 2006 and 945 of 2006 seeking to vacate the interim order. The said applications were supported by a counter affidavit dated 16.01.2006.
4. On directions from this Court on 01.04.2009, the original records were produced by the respondents for perusal by this Court.
5. The petitioners have also filed an additional typed set of papers. It is the stand of the petitioners that the land in question originally belonged to one A.Dhanammal. She purchased the same from her vendors by way of registered sale deed dated 04.10.1952. From the date of purchase, the said Dhanammal was in possession and enjoyment of the said lands and was carrying out agricultural operations in the land. Dhanammal was married to one Arumugha Naicker and they have a son by name A.Elumalai Naciker. The husband of Dhanammal, Arumugha Naicker died during the year 1943 and Dhanammal died on 28.11.1990, leaving their only son A.Elumalai Naicker to succeed to her entire estate.
6. The petitioners jointly purchased the lands in question for consideration by way of registered sale deed during 1996 from the said A.Elumalai Naicker. They were also put in possession and they continue to carry on agricultural operation. The lands were never converted into urban land at any point of time either by the petitioners or by their predecessors in title. It was only during 2003, when the first petitioner was carrying on agricultural operations in the said lands, some revenue officials came to the lands and informed them that the land had already been vested with the Government due to the proceedings initiated under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. It was found out that the notice under Section 7(2) of the Act was served upon the son of late Dhanammal, one Krishnan. It was submitted that the said Dhanammal has no such son in the name of Krishnan. Thereafter, the respondents have assessed the land and declared them as urban vacant land. It was also claimed that a notice under Section 9(1) was served on Krishnan. As there was no objection from the land owner, further proceedings were continued. Neither the petitioners nor their vendor were aware of these proceedings. Infact the said Dhanammal was staying with her son at Royapuram at Chennai till her death. The agricultural operation was also carrying on in the said land. Therefore, it was claimed that since it is an agricultural land, the question of acquisition under the Urban Land Ceiling Act does not arise. In any event, no attempt was made to serve the real owner and the proceedings as per law was not followed for effecting serv
