AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—Heard both sides.
2.These writ petitions arise out of Special Revisions filed by the Petitioners before the Special Appellate Tribunal u/s 15 of Tamil Nadu Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. The Petitioners challenged the Orders passed by the Respondents dated 18.12.2001 and 31.01.2002 in
that Special Revision Petitions. They were numbered as S.R.P. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2002. The Petitioners were represented through their Power of
Attorney D. Sampath
In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matters stood transferred to this Court and were renumbered as CRP Nos. 1969 and 1970 of 2003.
However, a learned Judge of this Court opined that no Civil Revision Petition will lie as the officers whose orders under challenge were not a Court
but only statutory authorities. Therefore, the CRPs were converted into writ petitions and notices were ordered.
Before the Tribunal, no counter affidavit was filed by the Respondents. The original records were also circulated for perusal by this Court.
During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Petitioner in the second writ petition had passed away and his wife and daughter have come on
record as LRs of the second writ Petitioner.
Both the original Petitioners were sons of Late Govinda Pillai. The vacant land to an extent of 50 cents in Old S. No. 115 and an extent of 41
cents in S. No. 116/1 of Arumbakkam Village, Egmore were purchased by one Kuppammal, predecessor of the Petitioners by Document No.
1803 of 1928 registered at the Sub Registrar Office, Saidapet. In the year 1961, a partition deed was registered at the Sub Registrar Office,
Saidapet. The Petitioners'' father late Govinda Pillai, got an extent of 50 cents in S. No. 115 and one Uthan Pillai got his share an extent of 41
cents in S. No. 116/1. The two original Petitioners have never alienated the land that was assigned with their father.
When the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act came into force, they filed a Statement u/s 7(1) of the Act giving details of the
holdings including mentioning of S. No. 115 to the extent of 50 cents. Proceedings were initiated under the ULC Act against the Petitioners. An
order u/s 9(5) was passed in respect of the holdings of the Petitioners on 09.01.1984 declaring 301.50 sq. mts of land as excess vacant land. The
excess land was subdivided as T.S. No. 13/13 and proceedings came to an end declaring the excess vacant land. Subsequently, a notification u/s
11(1) was published in the Government Gazette on 13.02.1985 and notification u/s 11(3) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 08.05.1985
declaring the total excess vacant land as 301.5 sq.m. Notification u/s 11(5) of the Act was passed by the second Respondent on 03.07.1985.
However, during the year 1974, a town survey was conducted at Arumbakkam Village to change the old survey numbers into town survey
numbers. During this town survey, the survey numbers 114/2, 114/3, 115, 116/1 and 116/2 were grouped together to form Town Survey Nos.
13/2 in Block No. 12. The total extent of Town Survey No.13/2 is about 2 Acres and 98 cents belonging to about ten persons of different families
as per revenue records as on 1984. The measurements and boundaries constituted in S. No. 13/2 should have been done only on the basis of old
survey field maps. But this procedure was not followed by the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities while subdividing the excess vacant land of 301.5
Sq. Mts, (Apprx.7 = cents) situate in S. No. 115 from the larger extent of new Town Survey No. 13/2 comprising of 2.98 Acres belonging to
about 10 persons of different families. Instead of taking over the excess vacant land forming part of T.S. No. 13/2 corresponding to Old S. No.
115, the authorities erroneously took the excess vacant land in that part of the T.S. No. 13/2 corresponding to new S. No. 116/1. The land
situated in the new survey number did not belong to the Petitioners at any time. The extent of 41 cents situated in S. No. 116/1 given to Uthan
Pillai by partitiondeed No. 832/61 was alienated in the year 1964 itself by registered documents to five different persons.
The Petitioners came to know the mistake committed by the Respondents by identifying the excess land in S. No. 115 only when they got Patta
on 06.01.1996. Therefore, the Petitioners sent a representation to the Tahsildar, Egmore Taluk by a letter dated 30.09.1996 to rectify the mistake
and to grant patta for the correct portion of T.S. No. 13/2. A legal notice dated 01.11.1996 was also issued to the Tahsildar. These facts were
verified by the Tahsildar and it was informed to the District Collector about the mistake committed by the ULC authorities. The facts was also
brought to the notice of the Director of Urban Land Ceiling, Chepauk. The Collector of Chennai, by a communication dated 06.12.1996
addressed to the Director of Urban Land Ceiling, Chepauk to go through the relevant files and requested to issue suitable orders on the land taken
over under T.S. No. 13/12 in Block 12 of Arumbakkam Village. Inspite of these representations, no progress made. The Petitioners also informed
the Director of Urban Land Ceiling that the land taken over in T.S. No. 13/12 was not having any access or path from any side. They have also
requested the State Government to take over the excess area of 301.5 Sq.m. in the land corresponding to that of T.S. No. 13/2 (Old No. 115 in
lieu of the area taken over from that part of T.S. No. 13/2 corresponding to S. No. 116/1) and also to earmark the balance retainable area in S.
No. 115 for their use so that they will access to the balance area in the survey number. They also subsequently requested the Respondents to
cancel the acquisition proceedings.
In the meanwhile, T.N. Act 20/99 was enacted repealing the Urban Land Ceiling Act and u/s 4, when possession was not taken over by the
State Government, then the same could be retained by the land owner. Even if any compensation was paid, that can be refunded in lieu of retention
of the land. The Petitioners were put to inconvenience as in the absence of any pathway, no building plan could be sanctioned for the site.
Therefore, they filed the special revision petition in the year 2002, seeking to set aside the order passed by the Respondents informing them that
the land has been assigned to the Fire Service Department and the old Act being repealed, no action can be taken on their representation. Finally,
the said matters have reached this Court as noted already.
Mr. V.K. Vijayaraghavan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended as follows:
The State Government has repealed the ULC Act 20/1999 on 16.06.1999. The Excess vacant land has been taken over from S. No. 116/1 which
did not belong to Petitioners.
Hence possession of the land comprised in S. No. 115 which belong to Petitioners is still with them not taken over by the Government.
The compensation determined for each Petitioner was Rs. 301.50. Out of this each Petitioner received Rs. 75/- only and the same together with an
interest of Rs. 133/-was re-deposited by each of them.
As the possession of the land declared surplus was not taken over by the Government, the Petitioners are entitled to the benefits of Repeal Act and
the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner/ULC, Egmore in respect of T.S.13/14 and 13/13, Block 12 of Arumbakkam Village are liable to
be quashed declaring that the proceedings are abated.
It must be noted that the Petitioners were well aware of the proceedings initiated by the Respondents and it came to an end during the year
1987 when final orders are passed u/s 12(6). It is not a case where the Petitioners were not heard and the proceedings were conducted ex parte.
Compensation amounts were also been paid as agreed by the Petitioners. In the present case, the Petitioners have moved the Special Tribunal for
revising the orders of the authorities. But exercise of revisional power cannot be used arbitrarily at a belated stage. What should be a reasonable
time depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
In the present case, the lands have been taken over by following appropriate procedure and the revision was filed before the Special Tribunal
only after a period of 15 years. The Supreme Court in Smt. Sulochana Chandrakant Galande Vs. Pune Municipal Transport and Others, in
paragraphs 25, 29 and 30 has observed as follows:
Undoubtedly, Section 34 does not prescribe any limitation during which the revisional power can be exercised by the State Government either
on application or suo motu. The question does arise as to whether absence of limitation in Section 34 confers unfettered power to vary or revoke
the order of the prescribed authority without any outside limitation in point of duration i.e. does it confer an everlasting or interminable power in
point of time. If the contention raised by Mr Ganguli that such provisions of Section 34 do not prescribe any limitation, and it confers an
interminable power upon the State Government in point of time to exercise the revisional power, is accepted, there will be no finality of the
proceedings taken under the 1976 Act.
In view of the above, we reach the inescapable conclusion that the revisional powers cannot be used arbitrarily at a belated stage for the
reason that the order passed in revision under ` 34 of the 1976 Act, is a judicial order. What should be reasonable time, would depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case.
If some person has taken a relief from the court by filing a writ petition immediately after the cause of action had arisen, the Petitioners cannot
take the benefit thereof resorting to legal proceedings belatedly. They cannot take any benefit thereof at such a belated stage for the reason that
they cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person. In State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya,
this Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches, on the ground that the Petitioner therein filed
the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case, as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay
and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches.
Therefore, the Director was right in saying that since possession has been taken over and proceedings have come to a conclusion long ago, the
Petitioners'' attempt to revive a cause of action which is stale cannot be allowed to be prosecuted.
In the light of the above, both the writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.