The State Of Of Tamil Nadu v. K. Lakshmanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU W.A.NO.284 OF 2018 AND C.M.P.NO.2113 OF 2018
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Law Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner, Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, (Kancheepuram District), 169, Sannathi Street, Adambakkam, Chennai - 600 088.
... Appellants .Vs.
1. K.Laskshmanan
2. K.Ramakrishnan
3. K.N.Narayana Nair
4. Kamala
5. S.Rajaram
6. M.K.Santhanagopalan
7. C.Jayaraman
8. N.Komalavalli
9. K.R.Ravunny
10. Mourice Muniraja
11. S.Sathyamurthy
12. P.Subramanian
13. Chithra Ramanathan
14. K.Prema
15. R.G.Krishnan
16. T.N.Lakshman Rao
17. L.V.L.N.Sharma
18. Dhanalakshmi
19. S.K.Murali
20. Dhanalakshmi
21. Nirmala
22. J.Rajaram
23. K.R.Subramaniam
24. Vijayakumari
25. T.V.Ramakrishnan
26. P.Muthukrishnan
27. B.Anandha Joshi
28. P.Muthukumar
29. S.S.Rajan
30. C.Balasundaram
31. R.Ramesh
32. K.R.Ganesan
33. V.Sivaramakrishnan
34. A.V.Sriram
35. Andal Gnanasekaran
36. Vijayalakshmi
37. R.Mahalingam
38. Vijaya
39. R.Rajini
40. S.Vinoth Kumar
41. Ammni Madhavan
42. A.Nambiar
43. Usharani
44. Haripriya
45. R.Rajaram
46. Seshammal
47. S.V.S.Arivarasu
48. R.Muralidharan
49. S.Soundararajan
50. A.Padmanabhan (deceased)
51. Lalitha
52. M.Radhakrishnan
53. M.Balasubramanian
54. C.Asaithambi
55. K.Ravichandran
56. K.Kannan
57. U.Murugesan
58. M.Jaganathan
59. N.Shanmugam
60. A.V.Raghavan
61. V.Kannan Pillai
62. T.Ramamurthy
63. C.Chenrayan
64. M.Rajeswari
65. G.Lakshminarayanan
66. S.Muralidharan
67. S.Arivudai Nambi
68. N.Shankar
69. S.Ravi
70. M.Duraisamy
71. S.Venkateswaran
72. S.Thiyagarajan
73. Janaki
74. R.Gandhimathi
75. Saroja Padmanabhan
76. P.Aarathi
77. P.Vaishnavi ... Respondents (Respondents 75 to 77 were impleaded as legal heirs of deceased Respondent No.50 (Mr.A.Padmanabhan) as per the order of this Court dated 06.07.2022 made in C.M.P.No.9452 of 2022) PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 25.06.2010 passed in W.P.No.13863 of 2001 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
PRAYER IN W.P.NO.13863 OF 2001:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constituion of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the proceedings of the third respondent in S.R.No.9/85-A dated 31/10/1986 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from taking any action under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, in respect of the lands belonging to the Petitioner's comprised in Survey No.174/2, Madipakkan Village, Kancheepuram District.
For Appellants :
Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar Special Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.A.Jenasenan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA, J.) This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated 25.06.2010 passed in W.P.No.13863/2001 by a learned Single Judge of this Court holding against the appellants that no notice whatsoever under Section 11(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') was issued to the writ petitioners/respondents herein prior to coming into force of the Repealing Act and that the possession in the eye of law has not been taken before coming into force of the Repealing Act.
2. Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants heavily assailing the impugned order placed before us three fold submissions. Firstly, when the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition holding that the appellants have failed to establish the compliance of Section 11(5) of the Act by giving notice to the occupiers of the lands-in-question, the learned Single Judge has committed an error apparent ignoring the fact that Section 11(5) notice was duly issued to the original landlords and thereafter, possession also has been handed over by the original land lords to the appellants, who in turn, have taken over possession. But subsequently, the purchasers have continued to remain in possession.
Considering the continuance of the physical possession of the lands-in-question by the subsequent purchasers whose subsequent purchases are non-est in law, allowed the writ petition. Secondly, as per Section 5(3) of the Act, the lands covered by the approved layout prior to the coming into force of the Act cannot be brought under the said Act.
specifically and categorically held to be non-est in the eye of law, although they claim that it was an approved layout and the competent authority, namely, the Director of Town and Country Planning has approved the same, this has not been fully complied with by getting a resolution from the Local Body. Thirdly, the writ petitioners/respondents herein are only the subsequent purchasers and they have no locus standi to question the land acquisition proceedings. This crucial aspect has also been overlooked by the learned Single Judge.
3. In reply, Mr.A.Jenasenan, learned Counsel for the respondents herein/writ petitioners would submit that when the writ petitioners came to this Court with a specific prayer to quash the proceedings dated 31.10.1986 in SR.No.9/85-A of the 3rd appellant herein, namely, The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Kancheepuram District, 169, Sannadhi Street, Adambakkam, Chennai-600 088 with a consequential direction to forbear the appellants herein from taking any action under the Urban Land Ceiling Act in respect of the lands belonging to the respondents comprised in Survey No.174/2, Madipakkam Village, Kancheepuram District, they have clearly made out a case that neither a notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was served upon them nor the appellants can dispute the land-in-question has been covered by Section 5(3) of the Act.
Section 5(3) of the Act clearly says that where any person with an object of development of vacant land for sale by allotment of plots of land to others, has by himself, or through any other person, obtained before the commencement of this Act, the sanction of the appropriate authority for the layout of such vacant land held by such person, then the person so holding the land shall be entitled to continue to hold such vacant land and the Land Ceiling Act cannot have any impact on this land. In support of his submission, he has also placed before us the approved layout sanctioned by the competent authority much prior to the Act came into force. Explaining this aspect, Mr.Jenasenan explained to us that the writ petitioner had obtained the planning permission from the competent authority on 02.09.
1974 whereas the Act came into force only on 03.08.1976. Again soliciting the notice of this Court to the sale deeds for the lands purchased by the respondents herein explained us from the schedule of the sale deed showing that the lands-in-question have been approved by the competent authority, the lay out has also been approved on 02.09.1974.
" k/ g/ kh /e- J E , vz; 164-74 ,t;tYtyf foj vz; 5085-74 br/ br/ k/ e/ fz;Ls;sgo m';fPfhpf;fg;gLfpwJ/
(Sd/-) f/k/gukrptk; 2-9-74 Jiz efuikg;g[ ,af;Feh;. brd;id. br';fy;gl;L kz;lyk;/ " 4.
Learned Counsel for the respondents would further submit that in view of the above, it is the case of the writ petitioners/respondents herein that when C.Murugesan and his wife had purchased the lands covered in Survey No.174 with various sub-divisions measuring 37150 sq.meters in the year 1936, they had also divided the said lands into housing plots and they have also submitted proposals for approval of a layout before the appropriate authorities. The appropriate authorities had passed orders sanctioning a lay out in Proceeding No.183/73.
Therefore, once the housing plots were duly approved by the authorities known as 'Ayyappa Nagar', the original owners have sold their housing plots to various persons including the writ petitioners by executing the sale deeds in the year 1974 and 1975 and the writ petitioners/respondents herein also after purchase have put up their residential houses and they have been living there right now. Thereafter, in the year 1986, the 2nd respondent therein/2nd appellant herein has initiated the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 in respect of the lands held by the original owner Murugesa Naicker who died in the year 1985.
Although, a notice was issued to the legal heirs of the said Murugesa Naicker, none of the owners of the lands including the writ petitioners were issued with any notice in this regard. This aspect was rightly brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge making out a case that unless notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was issued to the persons who are in possession of the lands, the entire proceedings would lapse. The learned Single Judge also finding from the records produced by both the parties has come to an unassailable conclusion that although it was pleaded by the appellants that Section 11(5) notice was issued to the original owners, the physical possessions were with the writ petitioners only.
But there was no iota of evidence produced before the learned Single Judge to say that any such notice was served on any of the writ petitioners under Section 11(5) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the possession said to have been taken by the Government is non-est in the eye of law because the mandatory conditions mentioned in Section 11(5) of the Act have not been complied with.
5. In support of his findings and conclusion, the learned Single Jude has also relied upon two of the Division Bench Judgments of this Court, namely, firstly in V.Somasundaram v. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department reported in 2007 (1)
MLJ 750 and yet another in the case of M/s.Sree Jayalakshmi Brick Industries v. The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government and others reported in 2009 (4) LW 819. In both these judgments, it has been held that as per Section 11(5) of the Act, the competent authorities are bound to issue notice who may be in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession to the Government or any person duly authorized by the Government within 30 days time. Since the appellants in this case have miserably failed to produce any record before the learned Single Judge or before this Court to substantiate that compliance of Section 11(5) of the Act as to whether they have issued notices to the persons in occupation, the finding given by the learned Single Judge that no compliance has been made by the appellants in respect of Section 11(5) of the Act cannot be found fault with.
6. We also find merits on the two submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondents herein/writ petitioners. When Section 5(3) of the Act has been canvassed before the learned Single Judge, we find no specific finding has been given by the learned Single Judge in this regard. Section 5(3) of the Act is extracted here under :
''5(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any person with an object of development of vacant land for sale by allotment of plots of land to others, has by himself, or through any other person, obtained before the commencement of this Act, the sanction of the appropriate authority for the layout of such vacant land held by such person, then the person so holding the land shall be entitled to continue to hold such vacant land''.
A perusal of the above section shows that if a land-inquestion is the subject matter of layout approval and any person with an object of developing the vacant land for sale has obtained before the commencement of this Act, the sanction of the appropriate authority for the layout for such land held by such person, then the person so holding the land shall be entitled to continue to hold such vacant land. That clearly shows that if a land-in-question has been developed after obtaining permission from the competent authority, namely, in the present case, the Director of Town and Country Planning, before the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, the land-in-question cannot be brought under the said Act 1978 because as we have mentioned above, the writ petitioners/respondents herein have obtained proper sanction for layout of the vacant land on 02.09.1974. Since the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act
1978 has come into force only w.e.f. 3.8.1976, the layout approval granted by the Director of Town and Country Planning shows that it was on 02.09.1974 much before the commencement of the Act, therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants that the writ petitioners being the subsequent purchasers are not entitled to maintain the writ petition is far from acceptance as the Section 5(3) of the Act keeps the lands-in-question safely away from the purview of the 1978 Act. Secondly, as we also find that since the finding given by the learned Single Judge in respect of the noncompliance of Section 11(5) of the Act have not been disproved by the appellants, we do not find any error in the impugned order. Moreover, we are also able to see that the writ petitioners are in possession of the lands-in-question from the day when they have constructed their houses after obtaining layout approval from the competent authority that shows that no physical possession of the land has been taken over by the appellants.
7. It is relevant to extract Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999 as under:- ''3(i) The repeal of the Principal Act shall not affect : Savings (a) The vesting of any vacant land under subsection (3) of Section 11, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the Competent Authority; and (b) the validity of any order granting exemption under sub-section (1) of section 21 or any action taken thereunder.
(2) Where-- (a) any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Principal Act but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the Competent Authority; and (b) any amount has been paid by the State Government with respect to such land.''
A mere perusal of the above provision clearly shows that where any land is deemed to have vested with the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Principal Act, but, possession of which has not been taken over by the Competent Authority, then such land continues to be with the landlord or occupier. As highlighted above, in the case on hand, since the physical possession of the land in question has been continued even today with the writ petitioners and that the competent authority had also sanctioned the layout of such land as per Section 5(3) of the Act, even much before the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, came into force with effect from 03.08.1976, in our considered opinion, the appeal ought not to have been filed frivolously, therefore, for all these reasons, we find no merits in this Writ Appeal.
8. At this stage, learned Counsel for the respondents herein would submit that some of the writ petitioners are senior citizens aged about 75 years and they are not able to get the patta from the revenue authorities in view of the pendency of this matter, therefore, a direction may be issued to the appropriate revenue authorities to issue patta to them at the earliest.
9. Considering the submission now made by the learned Counsel for the respondents herein/writ petitioners, in the light of the above findings and conclusions reached by this Court, we hereby direct the concerned revenue authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioners, in case of moving any application for getting patta by them, on merits and in accordance with law, as early as possible.
10.
With the above observation and direction, the present Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/- Deputy Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar tsi To 1.
The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Law Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner, Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, (Kancheepuram District), 169, Sannathi Street, Adambakkam, Chennai - 600 088.
+2ccs to Mr.A.Jenasenan, Advocate, S.R.No.43294 W.A.NO.284 OF 2018 PA(CO) PBS/26/07/2022