The importance of following statutory procedures in taking over land and the effect of not taking possession after the TN Act 20/99.

1. Heard both sides.

2. This writ petition arises out of a Special Revision (SRP.No.45 of 2001) filed by the petitioner before the Special Appellate Tribunal under Section 15 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (for short Act). The petitioner challenged the Order passed by the respondent dated 20.11.1998 in R.C.B.No.3589/97 in that Special Revision Petition.

3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as CRP No.1929 of 2003. However, a learned Judge of this court opined that no Civil Revision Petition will lie as the officers whose orders under challenge were not a Court but only statutory authorities. Therefore, the CRP was converted into a writ petition and notice was ordered.

4. Before the Tribunal, no counter affidavit was filed by the respondent. However, the original records were circulated for perusal by this Court. It is stated by the petitioner that the impugned notice was not served on him. After coming to know of the same, he applied for a certified copy and filed the special revision before the Tribunal against the order dated 20.11.1998. Hence, there was a delay in moving the Court.

5. The contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner were as follows:

a)No notice was given to the petitioner under Sections 7(2), 9(4) and 11(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978.

b)The notice claimed to have been sent is not in accordance with law and more particularly prescribed under Rule 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978.

c) In any event, the possession alleged to have been taken was not valid and no notice was ordered as per Section 11(5) of the Act.

d)Without prejudice to these contentions, it was also submitted that inasmuch as the possession of the land continues to be with the petitioner, the benefit of Sections 2 and 4 of the TN Act 20/1999 (w.e.f.16.06.1999) will enure to the benefit of the petitioner.

e)The lands are classified as agricultural lands and continues to be agricultural land and in terms of Section 3(p) of the Act such lands could not have been covered by the Act and hence the proceedings initiated are void ab initio. There is no material under which the respondents have taken action under the Act.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased the wet land to an extent of one acre in Survey No.264/1, Mangadu Village from its previous owners Balasundaram and others by a registered sale deed dated 17.08.1975. The vendors of the petitioner had obtained the property from the original owners one Raniammal and others dated 01.09.1956. The petitioner has been in continuous possession of the land. He has been paying Annual Kist to the Village Administrative Officer. When the Kist was not collected for the last five years, he contacted the Village Administrative Officer, who in turn informed him that the land was coming under the Ceiling Act. It was claimed that no notice under Section 7(2) was served on him. While the name of the petitioner is R.Krishnan, the notices were sent in the name of one C.Krishnan. Since no opportunity was given, he were not aware of the proceedings. In support of his contention, reliance was placed upon the following judgments of this Court:

a) K.R.Kothandaraman v. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, Chepauk and another (2005-4-L.W.299).

b) C.N.Chandran and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary, Revenue Department, Chennai and another (2006) 3 MLJ 1050.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in question is an agricultural land and therefore, the Act will not apply. In this context, he refers to the judgment of this Court in S.Sarangapani Iyengar v. The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Alandur and Saidapet reported in 1988-1-L.W 152 wherein in considering the definition "urban land" under the Tami