Point of Law: Section 11(3), the State Government has to take further action for taking possession of the land, if land owner or any person in possession refuses or fails to surrender or deliver possession of the land so vested in the Government.

JUDGMENT :-

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarfieid Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the third respondent passed in his proceedings 161/2020/A2 dated 23.06.2020 and quash the same as illegal, consequently to forbear the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property comprised in Survey No.468/1B measuring about 1.27 acres at Keelaveeraraghavapuram, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District by invoking the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978, as repealed Act 20 of 1999.)

1. The case of the petitioners is that the property measuring about 8.29 acres comprised in S.No.468/1 situated at Keelaveeraragavapuram, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District belonged to one Chellaiya Thevar and Sankara Thevar. They partitioned the said property along with other properties among themselves through a valid partition deed, dated 17.09.1951 in Doc.No. 3277/1951. Both Chellaiya Thevar and Sankara Thevar have been in enjoyment and possession of the property without any hindrance.

2. On 15.02.1988 Sankara Thevar died leaving behind his wife, Vishalakshi, and his sons Muthukumarasamy, Veerapandiyan, Chinnathambi, Shanmugasundaram and his daughters Maragatham and Gandhiamathi, as his legal heirs. After the demise of the said Sankara Thevar, his legal heirs had been in possession and enjoyment of the property. After partition, the land was also sub divided into S.No.468/1A and S.No.468/1B. According to the petitioners, the property belonged to Chellaiyar Thevar was in S.No.468/1A and Sankara Thevar was in S.No.468/1B.

3. In the meanwhile, the second respondent had issued a draft declaration under Section 7(2) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978 (for brevity, 'the Act”) seeking to declare the land measuring about 18300 sq.mtrs in S.Nos.468/1 as surplus land. Out of which, Sankara Thevar's property measuring about 5140 sq.mtres in S.No.468/1B also came to be declared as surplus. The remaining extent belonging to Chellaiya Thevar was also brought under the Act. According to the petitioners, despite the fact that the properties had been sub divided, the second respondent had considered both the properties together and declared the land being surplus under the provisions of the Act.

4. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.252, Revenue Department, dated 21.02.1984 allotting the acquired lands to be used for various schemes. The Government passed another order vide G.O.Ms.No.1507, dated 27.11.1991 in dealing with the acquired properties. According to the petitioners, though the lands were declared surplus, the physical possession of the same has not been taken from the respective land owners. The petitioners claim that till date, the legal heirs of Chellaiya Thevar and Sankara Thevar are in possession and enjoyment of the properties respectively without any interference and also the petitioners claim that no compensation has been paid as per the procedures contemplated under the Act. The further case of the petitioners is that there was no issue of delivery note so far to the effect that the possession was taken over by the revenue authorities, in terms of the mandatory provisions of the Act.

5. While matter stood thus, in 1999, the Act came to be repealed and as per Section 4 of the repealed Act, if the physical possession is not taken over from the respective owners, it would amount the continuation of the proceedings and if any such proceedings is continuing, the same would be abated in terms of the repealed Act. According to the petitioners that the possession has not still been taken and the petitioners' possession has not been disturbed.

6. It is also transpired that in S.No.468/1A, when the property sought to be disturbed, the person concerned approached this Court in W.P.No.8616 of 2003 and this Court, by a detailed order, dated 01.11.2012, allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that t