Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI & M. VENUGOPAL, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others – Appellant
Versus
Sumathi Srinivas – Respondent
W.A. No. 1746 of 2014 & M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 17-02-2015
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 11(5) - Tamil Nadu Urban Land Act, 1978 - Section 6 - Repealing Act - Section 4 - Possession of excess land – Acquisition of land - Government Advocate for Appellants Respondents submits that Writ Court failed to take into account of a fact that possession of excess land was handed over to Revenue Authorities and that Writ Petition was filed after a lapse of eight years and therefore it is not maintainable in law - Government Advocate for Appellants urges before this Court that only after fulfilling all requisite formalities procedures land with an extent of square meters of Village was taken and handed over to Revenue Authorities by signing Land Delivery Receipt - In fact possession of excess land was taken over by Revenue Authorities well before Tamil Nadu Urban Land Repeal Act, 20 of 1999 and as such acquisition is saved under said Act and viewed in that perspective Writ Petition filed by Respondent Petitioner is unsustainable in law – Held, It is to be pointed out that while dealing with question of Estoppels by representation a Court of Law is to bear in mind that said representation ought to be plain not ambiguous or matter of questionable inference - In short Estoppels can only arise from a clear cut definite statement and a statement in order to put an Estoppels should be clear and unambiguous not necessarily susceptible of only one interpretation but such as will reasonably be appreciated understood in senses contended for and in this regard representation in entirety should be looked into – Furthermore an Estoppels must be strictly interpreted and to create an Estoppels against a party his declaration act or omission must be of unequivocal character - In short Doctrine of Promissory Estoppels belong not to Law of Contract on Evidence but relates to Equity and Fairness in Action - As far as present case is concerned since Respondent Petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of land in question and admittedly in view of fact that physical possession of property was not acquired from her in present case court are of considered opinion that Respondent Petitioner is entitled to avail benefits of ingredients of Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Repeal Act, 1999 - In upshot of qualitative and quantitative discussions as mentioned supra and also this Court bearing in mind Letter of Secretary Board of Revenue addressed wherein it was mentioned that land Village measuring in view of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Act, 1976 was repealed and replaced by Tamil Nadu Urban Land Act, 1978 and also that said lands were reported to be within ceiling limit prescribed under new Act etc and as such no exemption from urban ceiling land was necessary and further no action in terms of Section 11(6) of Act was taken with a view to secure actual physical possession of land from Respondent Petitioner this Court holds that impugned orders of 4th Respondent under Section 9(5) under Section 11(5) are clearly per se invalid and illegal one - Viewed in that perspective Writ Appeal fails - Writ Appeal is dismissed
M. Venugopal, J.
1. The Appellant/Petitioner has filed the instant intra-court Writ Appeal as against the order dated 17.09.2012 in W.P.No.14099 of 2007 passed by the Learned Single Judge.
2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned common order on 17.09.2012 in W.P.Nos.14099, 14499 & 15924 of 2007, had opined that the Respondents had not complied with the provision under Section 11(5) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by issuing and serving notice on the Petitioners and also that they had not taken any further action as per the provision under Section 11(6) of the Act and accordingly, set aside the impugned orders passed by the 4th Respondent, dated 23.10.1997 in Na.K.C.P.81/97D and 14.12.1998 in RC 1280/78D in W.P.No.14099/2007 and dated 25.03.1997 in Na.K.C.P.80/97D and 14.12.1998 in RC 1276/98D in W.P.No.14499/2007; and the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 18.04.1997 in Ref.Rc.469/96A and a final settlement dated 23.07.1997 in W.P.No.15924/2007 and resultantly, allowed the Writ Petitions.
3. The Learned Government Advocate for the Appellants/ Respondents submits that the Writ Court failed to take into account of a fact that the possession of excess land was handed over to the Revenue Authorities during the year 1999 and that the Writ Petition was filed after a lapse of 8 years and therefore, it is not maintainable in law.
4. The Learned Government Advocate for the Appellants urges before this Court that only after fulfilling all the requisite formalities/procedures, the land with an extent of 1600 square metres in S.No.72/10 (Old S.No.72/4) of Peerkankaranai Village was taken and handed over to the Revenue Authorities on 09.04.1999 by signing the Land Delivery Receipt. In fact, the possession of the excess land was taken over by the Revenue Authorities on 09.04.1999, well before the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 20 of 1999 and as such, the acquisition is saved under the said Act and viewed in that perspective, the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent/Petitioner is unsustainable in law.
5. The prime contention advanced on behalf of the Appellants is that the Writ Court, in the impugned order, had observed that during the year 1979 the lands in Survey No.72/4 and 99/1AB of Peerkankaranai Village measuring 2225 square metres in the hold of Saraswathiammal was treated as within the ceiling limit after taking into account the family members but failed to see that during the year 1997 it was noticed that the land in S.No.72/10 (Old S.No.72/4) measuring 0.21.0 hectare was sold to one Lakshmi Kanthammal Vagaiarah and was held by her as per the entries made in Revenue Accounts. Therefore, as per Section 17(1) of the Act, Tmt.Lakshmi Kanthammal is liable to file the return and all the provisions under Sections 7 to 16 of the Act would apply, since she had purchased the land.
6. According to the Learned Government Advocate for the Appellants, the Writ Court had failed to note that the land in S.No.72/10A of Peerkankaranai Village was owned by Lakshmi Kanthammal as per Patta No.1136 and she was the registered holder of the land when actions were initiated and the stated settlement made in favour of the Respondent/Petitioner in the said land after the initiation of actions under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 and after commencement of the Act is null and void as per Section 6 of the Act.
7. The Learned Government Advocate for the Appellants projects an argument that after publication of Notification under Section 11(3) of the Act, the land vested with the Government in 1998 and possession of the land was taken and handed over to the Revenue Department on 09.04.1999 and that the proceedings had attained finality well before the Repeal Act came into force.
8. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Government Advocate for the Appellants contends that the Learned Single Judge should have seen that the Notification was published under Section 11(1) of the Act and if
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
