The High Court held that re-litigation of land acquisition issues, already resolved by a prior judgment, is impermissible under law, emphasizing the principle of finality in litigation.

JUDGMENT :

S.M.Subramaniam J.

1. Under assail is the writ order dated 26.08.2014 passed in W.P.No.24528 of 2001. The State of Tamil Nadu preferred the present intra- Court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, mainly on the ground that the present writ petition is a re-litigation and the issues were already adjudicated elaborately by this Court long back and an order came to be passed in the year 1993 itself. Thus re-adjudication of issues made in the writ order impugned is to be assailed.

2. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellant would submit that excess vacant lands were acquired under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and was allotted to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation as per the G.O.Rt.No.627, Revenue dated 11.07.1996, an extent of 9110 Sq.Mtr in Survey No.226/3B of Manapakkam Village. The urban land owner, Smt.V.Geethalakshmi filed exemption petition before the Secretary to Government Revenue Department. Again, the urban land owner’s husband, K.K.Balaguruvappa filed a petition before the Secretary to Government Revenue Department and it was not considered by the Government. Prior to that, Smt.V.Geethalakshmi filed W.P.Nos.4945 & 4946 of 1984 and this Court has dismissed both the writ petitions.

3. Pertinently, Act 1978 was repealed on 16.06.1999. The petitioner preferred a revision, after a gap of more than 24 years from the date of taking over of the land. After repeal Act, 1978, the functions of the revisional authority has been functus officio and therefore, the said revision was not disposed of on merits by the Government. Again, the respondent / V.Geethalakshmi filed W.P.No.24528 of 2001 and the said writ petition was allowed and therefore, the present intra-court appeal came to be instituted by the State.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr.V.Ramesh would oppose by stating that possession, if not taken in accordance with Act, the entire proceeding became lapsed. The subject land is an agricultural land and the respondent is cultivating the land. Therefore, it is not capable of being acquired under the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. When the respondent has a vested right in respect of the said land and paying Kist till the year 1985, the action taken by the authorities are untenable. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition. Thus the present appeal is to be rejected.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between parties to the litigation.

6. The fact remains that the respondents originally filed two writ petitions in W.P.Nos.4945 & 4946 of 1984 seeking the relief of declaration that the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 is ultra-vires and void. W.P.No.4946 of 1984 was filed seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner therein / owner to retain 462 Sq.mtrs in the southwestern corner of the land bearing S.No.226/3 in Manapakkam village and to pay adequate compensation for the balance excess land viz., 9331 Sq.metrs in said S.No.226/3, if the petitioner is willing to surrender the excess land. This Court has elaborately considered the issues raised by the respondent and passed final orders on 03.03.1993. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

“5. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax while passing the impugned order, took into consideration the members of the family of the petitioner, and allowed her to retain 2000 square metres of Vacant lard under Section 5(1)(iii) the Act, that is in Polichalur village 1538 square metre in 5.No.165/1 and in Manapakkem village 462 square metres in S.No. 226/3. Out of the total extent available in S. No.226/3 of Manapakkam