Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, C.KUMARAPPAN
NEPC India Ltd. Rep. by its Director – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to the Government – Respondent
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
Mandatory government permission is required for holding and transferring land in excess of ceiling limits under the Land Ceiling Act, with unauthorized sales deemed invalid.
Industrial undertakings cannot hold or alienate land beyond statutory ceiling without government permission under Section 37-A; statutory law overrides conflicting government letters and illegal poss....
Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court did not have valid or sufficient grounds for rejecting the revised choice indicated by the petitioner because the choice can be revised till such time his....
The court emphasized that a transfer made during a life interest is void under the Land Ceiling Act, but substantive rights under the Transfer of Property Act remain intact, necessitating a civil sui....
The court affirmed that transfers made to evade land ceiling laws are void under Section 22, emphasizing the importance of timely action by affected parties.
The court held that valid sale deeds executed before the appointed date under the Ceiling Act must be considered, and notices issued post-death of the tenure holder are invalid.
The court upheld the validity of the allotment of excess land, ruling that failure to follow proper procedure under the Urban Land Ceiling Act did not negate the State's possession rights.
Exemption orders under Section 20(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act remain valid post-repeal if no violation of conditions occurs, rendering withdrawal attempts unlawful.
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
