AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, the learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned
Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent, dated
23.10.2003, issued pursuant to the notice, dated 3.6.2002, relating to the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands belonging to the
petitioners, in R.S. No. 520/2 and 520/3, in Keela Veeraraghavapuram Village and to quash the same.
It has been stated by the first petitioner that the petitioners 2 to 7 are the legal heirs of one Ramakrishnan, who was the co-owner of the
property in question. The petitioner and the said Ramakrishnan had held an extent of 4.65 acres of agricultural lands at Tirunelveli. While so, the
first respondent had initiated the acquisition proceedings, under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978,
by issuing the notice, u/s 7(2) of the Act. Challenging the said notice, two writ petitions were filed before this Court, in W.P. No. 14625 of 1989
and W.P. No. 13458 of 1989, wherein, interim stay of the proceedings had been ordered, by an order, dated 11.1.1990. During the pendency of
the writ petitions, Ramakrishnan had died, on 25.4.1992.
It has been further stated that an amendment had been made in the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, constituting a
Special Appellate Tribunal to deal with the matters arising under the Act. Accordingly, the writ petitions, pending on the file of this Court, had been
transferred to the Special Appellate Tribunal and re-numbered as T.R.P. No. 1 of 2001 and T.R.P. No. 2 of 2001, respectively. The Special
Appellate Tribunal had passed a common order, dated 30.10.2001, holding that the possession of the excess vacant lands had been taken over by
the Government, on 19.9.1989, two days prior to the filing of the writ petitions before this Court and therefore, the land acquisition proceedings
cannot be said to have abated. Accordingly, the petitions before the Special Appellate Tribunal had been dismissed.
It is contended by the petitioners that the authorities, under the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had not taken
possession, in accordance with the statute and no compensation had been paid, as seen from the notice issued by the first respondent, in
Ref.A4.1269/99, dated 3.6.2002. While dismissing the petitions, by its order, dated 30.10.2001, the Special Appellate Tribunal had not applied
its mind, nor had it considered the issue regarding the character of the land, which was agricultural in nature and therefore, the provisions of the
Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, could not have been invoked. Therefore, the notice issued, u/s 7(2) of the Act,
requiring the petitioners to file the returns, without considering their objections and the passing of the orders, u/s 9(5) of the Act, declaring an extent
of 1.28.0 hectares or 12,800 Sq.Mts, in R.S. No. 520 of Keela Veeraraghavapuram Village as the excess vacant land, is irregular and invalid.
Further, the subsequent proceedings, under Sections 10(1) and 11(3) of the Act, without service of notice on the petitioners, as contemplated
under Rule-8 of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978, and the act of the respondents in issuing the notice, u/s 11(5) of
the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, directing the petitioners to surrender possession of the land to the District
Collector, within 30 days of the service of the notice, are also arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law. The claim of the respondents, with regard to the
taking over of the possession of the land in question, without issuing the required notices, under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Tamilnadu Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, would be illegal and void.
It has also been stated that the notice, dated 3.6.2002, issued by the first respondent, in Ref.A4.1269/99, u/s 12(7) of the Act, would also be
void, in view of the coming into force of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Rule 11 of the Tamilnadu Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978, deals with the determination of the amount and the disposal of the cases by the competent authority,
under Sub-Section 7 and 8 of Section 12. Even though the first respondent had declared, u/s 11(3) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1978, that the excess vacant land is deemed to have vested with the State Government, with effect from 12.7.1989, the notice,
u/s 12(7) of the Act, had been issued by the first respondent, only on 3.6.2002. In view of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Repeal Act, 1999, all pending proceedings would be deemed to have abated, as per Section 4 of the Repeal Act. Therefore, the petitioners have
presented a representation to the first respondent and the second respondent, on 8.7.2002, requesting them to drop further action in the matter, on
the ground that the possession of the land in question was with the petitioners and as no compensation had been paid to the petitioners. In spite of
the directions issued by this Court, in W.P. No. 23706 of 2003, to pass appropriate orders on the representations of the petitioners, dated
8.7.2002, the first respondent by his order, dated 23.10.2003, had rejected the request of the petitioners. The said order has been challenged by
the petitioners in the present writ petition.
The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners are that the impugned proceedings of the first respondent,
dated 23.10.2003, is arbitrary, illegal and void. The first respondent had failed to note that the Repeal Act grants certain rights to the owners of the
land where physical possession of such land continues to be with its owner, as statutory vesting would be of no relevance. Further, Sub Clause (b)
of Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, specifically makes a provision to refund the compensation and to retain the possession of the
land, if such possession had continued to remain with the land owner. Further, when the first respondent had issued a notice, dated 3.6.2002,
inviting the petitioners to appear before him, with regard to the payment of compensation, payable u/s 12 of the Principal Act, there can be no
doubt that the compensation for the land, said to have been acquired by the respondents, had not been paid to the petitioners.
In view of the various communications between the petitioners and the District Collector, in pursuance of the notice issued u/s 11(5) of the
Principal Act, it would be clear that the possession of the land in question had not been taken by the respondents, within the time limit fixed under
the said notice. In the absence of the notice, u/s 11(6) of the Principal Act, it cannot be construed that the possession had been taken over from
the petitioners, as contemplated under the Principal Act. Since the land in question was agricultural in character, the provisions of the Tamilnadu
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, could not have been invoked by the respondents for acquiring the land belonging to the
petitioners.
By merely recording in the files that possession had been taken over, the respondents cannot claim that the petitioners have lost possession of
their land. Actual physical possession should have been taken over by the respondents in order to disentitle the petitioners from making further
claims. Since actual physical possession had not been taken over by the respondents and since the compensation for the land in question had not
been paid to the petitioners, the land acquisition proceedings would be deemed to have abated, in view of the coming into force of the Tamilnadu
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, on 16.6.1999. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent,
dated 3.6.2002 and 23.10.2003, are liable to be set aside and the respondents may be directed to hand over the possession of the land in
question to the petitioners.
No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had
submitted that the respondents had followed the procedures prescribed under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1978, in respect of the lands in question and the proceedings had been completed by taking over the possession of the land, on
12.7.1989. The compensation due to the owners of the lands had also been kept in the revenue deposit. Further, the said lands had been handed
over to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, and the buildings had been constructed in the said land after being allotted to various persons. In
such circumstances, the petitioners had come before this Court belatedly, questioning the land acquisition proceedings, without any merits.
Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well the respondents, and on a perusal of
the records, it is clear that actual physical possession of the lands in question had not been taken by the respondents. It has not been shown by the
learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that a notice u/s 11(6) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been
issued to the petitioners requiring them to comply with the notice issued u/s 11(5) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1978. Therefore, it could be construed that actual physical possession of the lands had not been taken by the respondents. Further, the
compensation amount due to the land owner had not been paid. In fact, the first respondent had issued a notice, dated 3.6.2002, inviting the
petitioners to appear before him with regard to the amounts payable to them, as compensation u/s 12 of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1978. Thus, it is clear that the compensation amount had not been paid to the petitioners, as prescribed by the relevant provisions
of the Act. Further, it has not been shown by the respondents as to whether the statutory notices had been served on the petitioners in accordance
with Rule-8 of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
Hence, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.