Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2529
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and C.KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
M/s.NEPC India Ltd. Rep. by its Director –Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to the Government – Respondent
W.A.No.1821 of 2011 & W.P.No.15230 of 2002 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.A.No.1821 of 2011
Decided on : 19-06-2024
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Land Ceiling Regulations
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Land Ceiling Act - Violation and deemed transfer of excess land - Court affirmed that the land in excess of the ceiling vests with the Government, confirming that unauthorized sales are illegal. (Paras 20, 23)
(C) Deemed exemption principle - Court rejected the argument of deemed exemption due to delayed consideration of exemption application, emphasizing the necessity of official approval. (Paras 6, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner company owned lands exceeding ceiling limits and sought exemptions for sales made without prior government approval. The Government rejected exemption applications citing violations of the Land Ceiling Act.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that unauthorized sales contravened statutory provisions and affirmed the government's rejection of the exemption requests.
Issues: Main issues included the legality of the sales made by the petitioner without government permission and the validity of exemption claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that prior government consent is paramount and unauthorized property transfers are null and void under the Act.
Result: Appeals and writ petitions dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for Mr.Aditya Saranga Rajan
For the Respondent: Mr.A.Selvendran, Special Government Pleader
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed against land ceiling order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. application for exemption during rejection of land sales. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding exemption claim and its consideration. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. details of land ownership and violations. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. interpretation of land ceiling act's purpose and implications. (Para 12 , 13 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. addresses statutory foundations regarding land ceiling and necessity of government permissions. (Para 14) |
| 7. deemed transfer of land violates legal provisions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. supreme court's views on statutory provisions. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 9. invalidation of sales due to lack of permission. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 10. court's decision and dismissal of the writ. (Para 28) |
JUDGEMENT :
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner before the writ Court is the appellant in the Writ Appeal No.1821 of 2011. The appellant instituted another W.P.No.15230 of 2002, challenging the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.595 Revenue, dated 08.12.1998, and the Letter (Permanent) No.497 Revenue (L.Ref II) dated 12.11.2001 passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu and to direct the Government to grant permission to hold the lands as per the applications made by the petitioner under Section 37-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 1961, (herein after referred as “Land Ceiling Act”). Since the issues raised in the writ petition and writ appeal are one and the same, both the cases are tagged together and the present common order has been passed.
2. The petitioner is NEPC India Ltd. The petitioner company filed a Special Revision Petition in SRP.No.4 of 2002, before the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, under Section 83 of the Land Ceiling Act, challenging the order dated 12.11.2001, passed by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, in G.O.Ms.No.497. Consequent to the abolition of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this High Court and converted as a Writ Petition and notices were ordered to the parties.
3. The petitioner states that their company was in possession of lands in excess of the Land Ceiling Act. The company was owning 2,248.20 acres of land in Coimbatore and Erode Districts. By way of sale, they had transferred substantial lands in favour of other companies. They filed applications prior to sale and after sale under Section 37-A of the Land Ceiling Act to the Government, seeking exemption from the Land Ceiling Act.
4. The Government held that even during the pendency of the exemption application, filed under Section 37-A of the Land Ceiling Act, the petitioner had sold the properties and their actions were found illegal and in violation of the Land Ceiling Act. Accordingly, the exemption applications were rejected. The Government held that under Section 7 of the Land Ceiling Act, the petitioner had contravened the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. Thus, further action was proposed to be initiated under Section 20 of the Land Ceiling Act. The said order of rejection, issued in G.O.D.No.595, Revenue (Land Reforms) dated 08.12.1998, is under challenge in W.P.No.15230 of 2002. Pertinently, the writ petition itself was instituted after a lapse of about four (4) years from passing of the rejection order. The writ petitioner continued to send representations to the then Minister for Revenue and requested to reconsider their earlier decision. Several such representations were submitted to the Hon'ble Minister for Energy and to the Government, repeatedly.
5. The Government by letter dated 12.11.2001, in G.O.Ms.No.497 Revenue, considered all the representations sent and held that there was no new ground adduced for grant of exemption and confirmed the original order of rejection passed in G.O.D.No.595 dated 08.12.1998. The Government opined that the land covered by the Land Ceiling Act cannot be allowed to be sold. Consequently, the request of the petitioner was reje
