Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, R. PONGIAPPAN, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department – Appellant
Versus
P.B.K. Thilagar – Respondent
W.A. Nos. 1139, 1152 of 2018 and C.M.P. Nos. 9121, 9216, 11242, 11243 of 2018
Decided On : 04-09-2018
Tamil Nadu Urban Land Act, 1978 - Sections 33, 11, 7, 9, 10 and 12 - Tamil Nadu Urban Land Repeal Act, 1999 – Section 4 - Possession of Respective Properties - Land Acquisition - Appellants herein are respondents in Writ Petitions and respondents herein are petitioners in respective Writ Petitions - Both these Writ Appeals arise out of common order passed by learned Single Judge in and by which prayer of respondents/writ petitioners to quash order and notice issued by second appellant relating to impugned proceedings and consequently to direct appellants/respondents in Writ Petitions to treat proceedings as abated and also to direct appellants 3 to 5 respondents 3 to 5 to include name of writ petitioners as owners of properties in impugned acquisition proceedings and to give fresh Notification and Declaration and award commensurate compensation for acquisition of lands of writ petitioners was allowed – Held, When notice has not been issued to actual owner or transferee land owner has lost opportunity to challenge decision by way of appeal by virtue of enactment of Repeal Act - In instant case notice was issued on dead person and not on actual owner - Therefore actual owner or transferee of land owner has lost opportunity to challenge possession by way of appeal by virtue of enactment of Repealing Act - Therefore we are of opinion that entire proceedings impugned herein are vitiated - Yet another submission made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents/writ petitioners is that since symbolic possession was taken itself respondents/writ petitioners are not entitled to benefits of Repealing Act - Furthermore as only symbolic possession has been taken in this case writ petitioners/land owners are in actual and real possession of lands in question - In this regard learned counsel for respondents/writ petitioners relied on decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in wherein it has been held as follows - It is to be noted that although Appellants/Respondents claim that possession of land in question was vested with Government and subsequently handed over purported possession being handed over in form of land receipt in law is only a symbolic possession and as a matter of fact actual/real possession was not taken - Writ Appeals Fail.
R. SUBBIAH, J.
1. Since the facts and the issue involved in both these Writ Appeals are identical, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The appellants herein are the respondents in the Writ Petitions and the respondents herein are the petitioners in the respective Writ Petitions. Both these Writ Appeals arise out of the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 17259 and 17260 of 2009, dated 15.04.2016, in and by which, the prayer of the respondents/writ petitioners to quash the order dated 30.06.1997 and notice dated 01.02.1999 issued under Section 11(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, by the second appellant relating to the impugned proceedings and consequently to direct the appellants/respondents in the Writ Petitions to treat the proceedings as abated under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act and also to direct the appellants 3 to 5/ respondents 3 to 5 to include the name of the writ petitioners as the owners of the properties in the impugned acquisition proceedings and to give fresh Notification and Declaration and award commensurate compensation for the acquisition of the lands of the writ petitioners, was allowed.
3. The brief facts which are common, to decide the issue involved in both these Writ Appeals, are as follows:
(a) The respondents/writ petitioners are the owners of Punjai agricultural land situated in Survey No. 21/3 of No. 154, Madipakkam Madura Puzhudivakkam Village of Tambaram Taluk of Kancheepuram District, measuring an extent of 60 cents and 24 cents or thereabouts, respectively, (out of the total extent of 2 acres and 49 cents, comprised in the said S. No. 21/3). The said lands were purchased by the respective petitioners from (i) S.T. Govindarajan and 4 others, who are the legal heirs of deceased Jayalakshmi and (ii) V. Subramanian, based on the respective registered sale-deeds.
(b) Since there was excess vacant land, notice under Section 7(2) of the said Act was issued on 03.12.1996 by the second appellant in the name of one Jayalakshmi (since deceased) and it was served by affixture on 18.02.1997. Since no reply was received from the respondents/writ petitioners, subsequently, notice under Section 9(4) of the Act was issued along with Draft Statement under Section 9(1) of the Act on 04.04.1997 and service of notice was made by affixture on 13.05.1997. The land was inspected on 15.05.1997. It was found that there were four terraced buildings in which the purchasers were residing and the remaining extent was vacant and used as road. Hence, enquiry notice was issued on 19.06.1997. As some of the houses were locked and others refused to receive the notice, the notice could not be issued and notice was issued by affixture to the urban land owners to appear for enquiry, and as some of them were not residing in the village and even their whereabouts were not known, an order under Section 9(5) of the Act was passed on 30.06.1997, declaring 9600 Sq. Mts. as excess vacant, after allowing 500 Sq. Mtrs. as entitlement and as stated above, notice under Section 9(4) with statement under Section 9(1) was issued for the proposed acquisition of the excess vacant land. The final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 15.04.1998. The Notification under Sections 11(1) and 11(3) were issued on 28.07.1998 and 12.10.1998 and the notice under Section 11(5) was issued on 01.02.1999 by affixture and the possession of the vacant land was taken on 20.05.1999 and it was handed over to the Revenue Authorities on 30.06.1999.
(c) After a lapse of ten years, the present Writ Petitions were filed by the respondents/writ petitioners in 2009 to quash the impugned order dated 30.06.1997 and also the notice dated 01.02.1999 issued under Section 11(5) of the Act passed by the second appellant relating to the impugned acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands in question belonging to the respondents/writ petitioners.
4.
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
