Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4795
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. JAICHANDREN, J.
R. Ekambaram
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep By Its Secretary Revenue Department & Another
Writ Petition No.7125 of 2004
Decided On : 30-11-2012
For the Petitioner:S.B. Fazluddin, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S. Kanmani Annamalai Government Advocate (T).
Headnote:
LAND CEILING - URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1978 - REPEAL ACT, 1999 - SECTION 4 - ABATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS - EXCESS LAND - POSSESSION NOT TAKEN OVER BY GOVERNMENT - PROCEEDINGS ABATED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, owner of 95 cents of land, inherited from his father and mother, was issued a notice under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, stating that he was holding 3400 square meters of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. The notice was not served in accordance with the law. Subsequently, the second respondent communicated to the petitioner that the Government of Tamil Nadu had acquired 3400 square meters of land belonging to him. However, the order was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to state that the proceedings initiated to acquire his land were arbitrary and illegal. The procedures prescribed under the Act were not followed by the respondents while acquiring the land in question. The land acquired from the petitioner could not be held to be in excess of the ceiling limit, considering that there were five members in the petitioner's family, including his wife and children. Meanwhile, the Act was repealed by the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, with effect from 16.6.1999, and all the proceedings initiated under the Act abated.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 4.3.2002, was passed arbitrarily and illegally, without issuing a notice to the petitioner and the other members of his family. No proper enquiry was held by the authorities concerned, by giving an opportunity to the petitioner and his family members, to raise their objections, before the impugned order was passed. In fact, no excess land was available in view of the fact that there were five members in the family of the petitioner. In such circumstances, as per Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) (Repeal) Act, 1999, the proceedings initiated by the respondents, in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner, had abated. As such, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 4.3.2002, could not be sustained in the eye of law.
Issues: Whether the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 4.3.2002, was passed arbitrarily and illegally, without issuing a notice to the petitioner and the other members of his family.
Ratio Decidendi: The proceedings initiated by the authorities concerned, under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, would abate, in view of the coming into force of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) (Repeal) Act, 1999, with effect, from 16.6.1999, unless actual physical had been taken over by such authorities and due compensation had been paid to the urban land owner.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 4.3.2002, was quashed.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the owner of 95 cents of land, in survey No.172/1 and 3 of Zamin Pallavaram village. It had been bequeathed in favour of the petitioner by way of a Will, dated 13.12.1973, executed by his father, Raji Naicker, bearing document No.27 of 1973. Accordingly, the petitioner had got 78 cents of land. By another Will, dated 9.6.1976, bearing document No.14 of 1976, 17 cents of land had been bequeathed to the petitioner, by his mother, Rajammal. As such, the petitioner, was in possession of a total extent of 95 cents of land, along with his wife and children.
3. It had been further stated that the second respondent had issued a notice, dated 23.9.1996, under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), stating that the petitioner was holding 3400 square meters of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. However, the said notice had not been served on the petitioner in the manner known to law. Thereafter, by the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 4.3.2002, it had been communicated to the petitioner that the Government of Tamil Nadu had acquired 3400 square meters of land belonging to the petitioner. However, the said order had not been served on the petitioner.
4. It had been further stated that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to state that the proceedings initiated to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner was arbitrary and illegal. The procedures prescribed under the Act had not been followed by the respondents, while acquiring the land in question. In fact, the land acquired from the petitioner cannot be held to be in excess of the ceiling limit, in view of the fact that there were five members in the family of the petitioner, including his wife and children. While so, the Act had been repealed by way of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, with effect from 16.6.1999. Accordingly, all the proceedings initiated under the Act had abated. As such, the proceedings initiated by the respondents to acquire the lands belonging to the petitioner, are illegal and void.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that an extent of 3900 square meters of land, in S.Nos.172/1, 172/3, and 172/6B, in Zamin Pallavaram village, was being held by the petitioner. As the said land, belonging to the petitioner, had been converted as urban land, a notice had been issued to the urban land owner, under Section 7(2) of the Act. The said notice had been sent to the urban land owner, in S.R.No.249/96, dated 23.9.1996. The said notice had been served on the brother of the urban land owner. The draft statement, under Section 9(1) and the notice, under Section 9(4) of the Act, had been issued, on 13.1.1997. The said notice had also been served on the brother of the petitioner. Thereafter, an order under Section 9(5) of the Act had been passed, vide proceedings S.R.No.249/96/C, dated 31.1.1997, declaring an extent of 3,400 square meters, as excess vacant land allowing 500 square meters towards individual entitlement. The said order had been served on one of the family members of the urban land owner. The final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act had been issued, on 7.11.1997. The notification, under Section 11(1) of the Act, had been published in the Government Gazette No.13, dated 8.4.1998. The notification, under Section 11(3) of the Act, had been published in the Government Gazette No.26, dated 8.7.1998. However, no objections had been filed by the urban land owner, at any stage.
6. It had been further stated that the notice, under Section 11(5) of the Act, had been issued, on 9.9.1998, directing the urban land owner to surrender the possession of the excess vacant land held by the urban land owner, within a peri
