AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
of the respondents, especially the order of the third respondent, dated 15.12.1995, vide Ref.NA.Ka. No. 845/95/C, in respect of lands of the
petitioners measuring 3950 Sq. mts. in survey No. 70 of Ayapakkam Village, and quash the same, and direct the respondents to treat the
proceedings as abated u/s 4 of Act 20 of 1999, viz., The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents.
It is the case of the petitioners that they are brothers who are the owners of the land in Survey No. 70 of Ayapakkam Village measuring about
3950 Sq.mts. The said land had been purchased by the petitioners by a registered sale deed, dated 18.02.1988. From the chitta and adangal
extracts, it is clear that the petitioners are the owners of the petition property.
It is the further case of the petitioners that acquisition proceedings under Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation), Act, 1978,
(hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') were initiated with regard to the petition land in the name of one Mr. Raghavan, who is not the owner of the
said property. The petitioners came to know about the said proceedings when they wanted to remit the kist for the fasali 1410. Further, when the
petitioners had applied for certified copies of the acquisition proceedings, the third respondent had issued a copy of the order, dated 15.12.1995,
made u/s 9(5) of the Act. The petitioners had filed an appeal before the second respondent u/s 33 of the Act. However, the appeal was returned
by the second respondent by an endorsement, dated 31.07.2001, vide R.C. No. 8730/2001-J1. Since the second respondent had failed to
entertain the appeal preferred by the petitioners, the present writ petition has been filed.
It is further submitted that the lands in question are purely agricultural lands as seen from the chitta and adangal extracts and therefore, not liable
to be quashed under the Act. Even though the respondents were aware of the fact that the petitioners are the owners of the land, the land
acquisition proceedings were taken against one Mr. Raghavan. This is clear from the fact that a notice u/s 7(2) of the Act was issued by the third
respondent to the petitioners for which they had replied stating that the lands were agricultural lands and therefore, it cannot be acquired under the
Act. Further, the third respondent by an endorsement, dated 26.07.1994, vide Ref.Rc.C/218/93, dropped all further proceedings against the said
lands on the ground that they were agricultural lands. Therefore, the order of the third respondent, dated 15.12.1995, in the name of Mr. Raghvan,
inspite of the fact that the petitioners were the actual owners of the property cannot be sustained in law. Further, the land was assessed for urban
land tax in the name of one Mr.Arasan Naicker, and the demand of urban land tax was raised against the petitioners. The petitioners had moved
the second respondent by a petition, dated 03.02.1993, and by an endorsement, dated 12.03.1993, vide Ref.K1/4415/93, the second respondent
had directed the petitioners to file a revision u/s 30 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act with regard to the assessment of tax.
It is contended by the petitioners that the acquisition proceedings, dated 15.12.1995, refers to a notice u/s 7(2) of the Act, dated 3.1.1994,
which has been closed by the third respondent, on 26.07.1994 itself. This clearly shows the lack of application of mind on the part of the third
respondent in passing the impugned order, dated 15.12.1995. It is further contended by the petitioners that the notice u/s 7(2) vide Ref.953/94,
dated 03.01.1994, is stated to have been served, on 29.09.1995, by affixture, eventhough , the said notice was served on the land owner earlier
for which a reply had also been sent. The said fact is evident from the order of the third respondent, dated 26.07.1994. Further, it is clear from the
impugned order, dated 15.12.1995, that notices u/s 9(4) and the draft statement u/s 9(1) of the Act were not served on the land owner prescribed
as per Rule 8 of the rules formulated in accordance with law. The Tamil nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation, Act 1978, states that all notices
and orders are to be served on the land owners by registered post with acknowledgement due and serving of notice by affixture cannot be done
except after following the prescribed procedures provided under the rules. Therefore, no steps have been taken by the respondents to serve the
notice on the actual owners of the property in question before passing the various orders, under Sections 9 to 11 of the act. Eventhough, the
petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the lands sought to be acquired by the respondents, no notice u/s 11(5) of the Act has been served
on them. Further, the physical possession of the lands is still with the petitioners, since the respondents had not taken actual possession of the
lands. Therefore, all proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Tamil nadu Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, shall stand abated. In
accordance with Section 4 of the Repeal Act, Act 20 of 1999, it is further contended by the petitioners that no person can be deprived of his right
to property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Any deviation in following the procedure would infringe Article 300A of
the Constitution of India. Section 11(5) of the Tamil nadu Urban (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, contemplates issuance of notice for voluntary
surrender of land. If the land owner or the person in possession of the land fails to surrender the land in his possession, power is conferred on the
respondents to take possession of the land by use of force, u/s 11 (6) of the Act. The petitioners have not surrendered the land since no notice had
been received by them u/s 11(5) of the Act. Further, no proceedings have been initiated by the respondent u/s 11(6) of the Act. Therefore,
possession of the petition lands continues to be with the petitioners and all proceedings relating to acquisition of the lands shall abate u/s 4 of Act
20 of 1999. It is further contended by the petitioners that the actual possession is vested with the petitioners and possession taken by the
respondents is only on record. Before taking actual possession, certain formalities have to be followed, like preparation of the memorandum or
panchnama duly attested by the independent witnesses etc. Such procedures have not been followed and actual possession have not been taken
by the respondents. In such circumstances, the entire proceedings initiated and proceeded with by the respondents, including the order of the third
respondent, dated 15.12.1995, vide Ref.Na.Ka. No. 845/95/C, in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners measuring 3950 sq.mts in
survey No. 70 of Ayapakkam village shall stand abated in accordance with Section 4 of Act 20 of 1999.
On the contrary, it is stated by the respondents that the land in S. No. 70/1 measuring 3950 in Sq.mts, in Ayapakkam Village, Ambattur Taluk,
Tiruvallur District, was registered in the name of Mr. Raghavan in the revenue records. Mr. Raghavan had not filed the statement u/s 7(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act), 1978. Hence, a notice u/s 7(2) of the Act was sent to him in SR. No. 953/94, dated
03.01.1994. Since his full address was not known, the notice was served on 29.09.1995 by affixture and no objections were received u/s 9(4)
and draft statement u/s 9(1) of the said Act was issued in SR.C/845/95, dated 16.10.1995, and served by affixture. The land was inspected by the
Deputy Tahsildar, on 11.12.1995, and it was found converted into a house site. Orders u/s 9(5) of the Act was passed in SR. No. 845/95/C,
dated 15.02.1995, declaring an extent of 3450 Sq.mts of land as excess vacant land, after allowing 500 Sq.mts for his entitlement, in S. No. 70 of
Ayappakkam village. The said order had been served on 09.02.1996.
It is further stated by the respondents that the final statement u/s 10(1) of the said Act was issued in SR.C/845/95, dated 29.03.1996, and the
same was served by affixture. The notification u/s 11(1) of the Act was prepared and SR.C./845/95, dated 05.12.1996, was published in the
Tamil Nadu government Gazette on 29.01.1997. The notification u/s 11(3) was also published in the Tamil Nadu government Gazette on
03.09.1997. The notice u/s 11(5) was issued in SR.C./845/95, dated 25.9.1998 and the same was also served by affixture. The excess vacant
land measuring 3450 Sq.mts in S. No. 70/1 in Ayappakkam village was handed over to the revenue authorities on 05.04.1999. Notice u/s 12(7)
was issued on 12.11.2001, and it was served on Mr.Elangovan, son of Mr. Raghavan on 05.12.2001 and orders u/s 12(6) of the Act was issued
on 08.04.2002. It is further stated by the respondents that the petitioners herein had filed the appeal before the Principal Commissioner and
Commissioner (Land Reforms) , Chepauk, Chennai. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner (Land Reforms) in his Endt.
Rc.8730/2001/J1, dated 31.07.2001, has informed the petitioner to take such action as is provided for in the Repeal Act 20 of 1999.
It is further submitted by the respondents that as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978, acquisition proceedings
were taken against Mr. Raghavan who is the owner of the land in question as on 03.08.1976, according to the revenue records available with the
respondents. Eventhough it is claimed by the petitioners that they had purchased the lands from Mr. Elangovan, son of Mr. Raghavan, vide
document Nos. 971 and 972, dated 22.02.1988, the land was registered in the name of Mr. Raghavan in the revenue records, as on 03.08.1976.
The petitioners had purchased the land in the year 1988 and at the time of inspection by the Deputy Tashildar, on 11.12.1995, the land was found
converted into urban land. No objections were received and no documentary evidence was submitted to show that the land was agricultural in
nature. Since the name of Mr. Raghavan was entered in the revenue records, as the owner of the lands, with effect from Fasili on 1397, all actions
were taken against Mr. Raghavan in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978, and therefore,
all the proceedings taken by the respondents were in accordance with law contrary to the claims made by the petitioner.
On a perusal of the documents filed before this Court, it is found that the petitioners had purchased the lands in question in S. No. 70 of
Ayapakkam Village in the year 1988. However, the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents herein had proceeded against one
Mr. Raghavan, even though he was not the owner of the land at the time of the proceedings. Further, it is also noticed that the lands in question
were said to be agricultural lands and therefore, not liable to be acquired under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1978. This fact was
also recognised by the third respondent by his endorsement, dated 26.07.1994, vide Ref.Rc.C/218/93.
It is also seen that the land acquisition proceedings were continued against one Mr. Raghavan culminating in the order of the third respondent,
dated 15.12.1995, and the lands in question were assessed for the purpose of Urban Land tax in the name of one Mr. Arasan Naicker. Further,
the respondents had not followed the procedure established by law for serving of notice before the acquisition of lands could be concluded.
In such circumstances, there was nothing shown from the records by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents to prove that actual
possession had been taken by the respondents from the petitioners. Further, following the earlier decisions of this Court it can be reasonably
concluded that the proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978, were not proceeded against the petitioners who
were shown to be in actual possession of the lands in question, and the repeal Act 20 of 1999, on coming into force, the acquisition proceedings
stand abated in accordance with Section 4 of Act, Act 20 of 1999. Therefore, the order of the third respondent, dated 15.12.1995, vide
Ref.Na.Ka. No. 845/95/C, in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioner, measuring 3950 sq.mts in Survey No. 70 of Ayapakkam Village,
Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected WPMP is
closed.