SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
M/s. SCM Silks Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Tirupur & Another – Appellants
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Land Reforms Wing, LR3(1) Section, Secretariat, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P.Nos. 22388 & 23846 of 2022 & W.M.P.Nos. 21446, 21447, 22832 & 22835 of 2022
Decided On : 07-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties:G. Masilamani, P.S. Raman, Senior Counsels, S. Sivashanmugam, Chethan Sagar, R. Shunmuga Sundaram, Advocate General Assisted by K.M.D. Muhilan, Additional Government Pleader, A.G. Shakeenaa, Y. Bhuvanesh Kumar, M.L. Ganesh, M.K. Kabir, Senior Counsel, T.M. Mano, Advocates.

Statutory conditions under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act cannot be circumvented by claims of waiver or estoppel; unauthorized sale of land under Section 37-B permission renders titles voidable.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 - Sections 37-B and 73(vi)(vii) - Writ petitions challenging rejection of exemption from possession of lands sought by SCM Silks Pvt. Ltd. and International Asset Reconstruction Company - Rejection upheld; no final orders for resuming land issued, and recognition of land as residential does not negate Government's rights under Section 37-B. (Paras 3, 80, 104)

(B) Statutory compliance - Land held under Section 37-B permission - Violation through unauthorized sale invalidated - No inherent right to prevent Government action in case of legislative breaches. (Paras 123, 150)

(C) Promissory estoppel - Government not bound by representations made by employees; no waiver of rights under land reform legislation. (Paras 112, 118)

(D) Procedural delays and estoppel arguments rejected based on statutory provisions; obligations must be fulfilled as set out in the Act and its rules. (Paras 97, 128) (E) Government authorized to resume land due to violations; parties misled regarding ownership and use of land. (Paras 6, 150)

Facts of the case:
The writ petitions were filed to contest actions under the Land Reforms Act related to land held by a public trust; petitions arose from attempted exemption claims for lands that had been sold unlawfully while under governmental control. (Paras 4, 20, 60)

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the claims of long-standing possession or waiver of rights, affirming the legislative intent to reclaim land for public use when conditions of acquisition are violated. (Paras 149)

Issues: Whether the petitioners could claim rights under Section 73(vi)(vii) in absence of compliance with Section 37-B permission conditions and whether the Government can seek to resume lands for violations. (Paras 80, 105)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that statutory provisions are paramount, with particular focus on past actions negating authority to alienate Government-controlled lands, regardless of secondary claims for exemption or implied acceptance. (Paras 112, 131)

Result: Writ petitions dismissed; actions for resuming land upheld.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records relating to Letter No.59183/LR3(1)/2005-57, dated 30.06.2022, to quash the same and consequently forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioner''s possession over the lands covered under the impugned order.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent No.1 herein culminating in the Letter No.59183/LR3(1)/2005-56 dated 30.06.2022 and to quash the same and consequently restrain the respondent Nos.1 to 7, their officers, men, agents, etc. from taking any further action to resume the lands scheduled under G.O.(Ms.) No.1959 dated 17.12.1987.)

Common Order:

The writ petition in WP No.22388 of 2022 has been filed by M/s.SCM Silks Private Limited. The writ petition in WP No.23846 of 2022 has been filed by International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited.

2. Both the writ petitions are instituted questioning the validity of the order dated 30.06.2022 issued by the first respondent-Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Chennai – 600 009. Thus, the cases are heard together.

FOR MORE CLARITY, LET US FIRST CONSIDER THE SCOPE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE IN THESE WRIT PETITIONS:

3. The impugned order addressed to M/s.SCM Silks Private Limited was issued pursuant to the representation submitted by the said Company, seeking exemption under Section 73 (vi)(vii) of the The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 [herein after referred as ''The Act'', in short]. The order impugned states that the request of the petitioner M/s.SCM Silks Private Limited cannot be considered for grant of exemption under the Act and further action will be taken after resuming the land from Sri Ramachandra Educational and Health Trust. Therefore, the first respondent has not passed any final orders either resuming the lands covered under Section 3 7-B of the Act or assigned the lands in favour of any other persons. The order impugned in unambiguous terms stipulates that further action will be taken for resumption of the Government lands from Sri Ramachandra Educational and Health Trust for whom the permission was granted to establish Medical Institution under Section 3 7-B of the Act. Therefore, the Government had no official transaction with the writ petitioners. M/s.SCM Silks Private Limited is no way connected with the permission granted to establish Medical Institution by Sri Ramachandra Educational and Health Trust under Section 3 7-B of the Act.

4. Thus, the application submitted by the M/s.SCM Silks Pvt Ltd., seeking exemption under Section 73(vi)(vii) of the Land Ceiling Act, was rejected and further intimation was given that actions will be initiated against the Sri Ramachandra Educational and Health Trust. Thus, the scope of adjudication in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners herein are undoubtedly limited and they are attempting to establish the case pursuant to the sale of 37-B lands by Sri Ramachandra Educational and Health Trust in favour of third parties.

5. Question arises, whether the petitioner M/s.SCM Silks Pvt Ltd., is entitled to seek exemption under Section 73(vi)(vii) of the Act, from the application of the Act by itself, in the absence of any permission granted in favour of the writ petitioner M/s.SCM Silks Pvt Ltd., under Section 37 -B of the Act. Thus, the issues are to be confined with reference to the rejection of exemption under Section 73 (vi)(vii) of the Act and it becomes unnecessary to expand the scope of the writ petitions.

FACTS AS STATED IN WP No.22388 of 2022:

6. In G.O.Ms.No.1079, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 01.07.1985, the Government approved the propo




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top