The State Of Tamil Nadu v. Hameeda Jaffar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.07.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN W.A.No.2443 of 2012 M.P.No.1 of 2012
1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms and Urban Land Tax, Tiruchirapalli 620 020.
3. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
4. The Tahsildar, Tiruchirapalli 620 002.
..
Appellants/Respondents v.
1. Mrs.Hameeda Jaffar, W/o. S.I.Jaffar Ali, 995-F, IInd Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.
2. Dr.Mumtaj Begum, W/o.Dr.K.A.Basheer, Trichy Road, Thanjavur 613 007.
..
Respondents/Petitioners Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order, dated 14.07.2010, made in W.P.No.1395 of 2003. WP.NO.1395/2003:
Writ calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in C.3/6656/2001 dated 13.12.2001 quash the same and direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.7 70 908/- (Rupees seven lakhs seventythousand nine hundred and eight only) collected from the petitioners by way of urban land tax for the period
1.7.1981to 30.6.2001 i.e. Fasli years 1391 to 1411 to the petitioners.
For Appellant : Mr.K.V.Dhanabalan, Special Government Pleader For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.Rajakalifulla, SC for Mr.Jayendrakrishnan
JUDGMENT
(Judgement of this Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) Challenge in this appeal is to an order made in W.P.No.1395 of 2003, dated 14.07.2010, by which, the Writ Court has set aside the order of the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai, the 3rd appellant herein, dated 13.12.2001, holding that the demand made by him, directing the respondents to pay urban land tax for the period between 01.07.1981 and 30.06.2001, ie., Fasli years 1391 to 1411, as without jurisdiction.
2.
Short facts leading to the appeal are that, an extent of 91695 Sq.Meters of land belonging to respondents' mother, Mrs.Saliha Bibi, comprised in S.F.Nos.131/2, 130 part, 133, 134/1 and 132/1 part of Kottapattu Village, Trichy District, was held to be an excess urban vacant land and that the respondents were directed to surrender the said excess land. Thereafter, by notice, dated 23.04.1981, issued under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Act), the Competent Authority has taken possession of the excess land.
3.
Aggrieved by the same, respondent's parents filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Land Reforms, under Section 33 of the Act and that the said appeal came to be dismissed on 16.09.1982. Thereafter, the respondents filed W.P.No.115 of 1983 and this Court, by order, dated 22.10.1990, allowed the Writ petition and remitted the matter back to the third appellant herein, for fresh consideration.
4.
Since the possession of the lands were taken over by the appellants, in rspect of the land, this Court ordered Status-quo. According to the respondents, ignoring the directions issued in W.P.No.115 of 1983, the Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms and Urban Land Tax, Chennai, second appellant herein, once again issued a notice, dated 30.09.1991, holding that the lands were vacant urban lands. The said notice has been questioned by the respondents in W.P.No.17041 of 1991,
for a Certiorarified Mandamus, to re-deliver the said lands, with compensation for the loss of standing crops. 5.
After the constitution of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, the Writ petition stood transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as T.R.P.No.216 of 1999 and by order, dated 06.12.1999, the Special Appellate Tribunal held that in view of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999, all proceedings, in the above matter shall abate and held that the compensation, paid to the respondents, should be repaid. The said order was duly complied with, by the respondents.
6.
Thereafter, the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai, third appellant herein, issued a demand, claiming urban land tax from the petitioner, for the period from 23.04.1981 to 17.04.2000, ie., Fasli years 1391 to 1411. Aggrieved by the demand, the respondents have filed a revision petition, before the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Chennai, the first appellant herein. The said revision has been dismissed on 13.12.2001, which resulted, in filing W.P.No.1395 of 2003. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Court, vide order, dated 14.07.2010, at Paragraphs 5 and 6, held as follows: "5. The only reason assigned in the impugned order to sustain the demand of urban land tax was that for the stated period the collection of tax from the owner of the urban land the Department, is not concerned with possession of the land since title and possession remained with the revision petitioner during the stated period and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the urban land tax.
6. In my view, the finding in the impugned order is unsustainable for more than one reason. Firstly, after the lands were declared as surplus in the hands of the petitioner by drawing a final statement under Section 10 of the Act, the department has resorted to the procedure contemplated under Section 11 of the Act for acquisition of the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit and they have taken possession of the property by invoking the power under Sub-section 5 of Section 11 of the Act. The invocation of the power under sub-section 5 of Section 11 is the final stage when the Government issues notice to the person in possession of the vacant land to surrender the lands to person authorized by the State Government. It is to be noted that after invoking the power under Sub-section 3 of Section 11 of the Act the lands shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, it is mis-normer to state that the title and legal possession remained with the
petitioners even after the notification under Section 11(3). It is to be noted that when W.P.No.115 of 1983 was allowed by this Court, by order dated 22.10.1990, it was specifically recorded that the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the possession of the lands has been taken over by the respondents, but the lands has not been assigned or handed over to any third party and based on such submission order of Status-quo was directed to be maintained. That apart, in the second writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.17042 of 1991 there was a prayer for re-delivery of possession. When the matter was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal directed the return of the compensation amount paid which was also complied with the petitioner. Therefore, during the relevant period (i.e.)
from 23.04.1981 to 17.04.2000, that is after the power under Section 11 of the Act was invoked, it cannot be stated that the petitioners had title and was the lawful owner of the land in question. Consequently, the demand for urban land tax for the said period has to be held without jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed."
7.
Though Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, learned Special Government Pleader assailed the order of the Writ Court, on the grounds, inter alia that the demand of urban land tax, from the respondents, for the period from 23.04.1981 to 17.04.2000, ie., Fasli years 1391 to 1411, was correct and that lands were assessed to urban land tax, as a natural consequence, after the acquisition proceedings, being set aside by this Court, dated 22.10.1990, and further contended that the respondents herein, on receipt of fresh notice, under Section 9(4) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, have not objected the ownership, in W.P.No.17042 of 1991, we are not inclined to accept the said contentions for reversing the well considered order of the writ Court, for the reason that, as early as on 23.04.1981, by invoking the provisions under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, the competent authority has already taken the possession of the excess lands.
8.
While considering the scope of Section 11 of the Act and vesting in State Government, free from all encumbrances, the Writ Court, has categorically held that when possession had already been taken over by the Government and therefore, the question of issuing a demand for payment of tax, for the period from 23.04.1981 to 17.04.2000, ie., Fasli years 1391 to 1411, does not arise.
9.
Writ Court has also taken note of the fact that when the respondents questioned the notice, dated 30.09.1991, issued
by the Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms and Urban Land Tax, Tiruchirapalli, 2nd appellant herein, there was also a prayer for re-delivery of the said lands, with compensation, which means that possession continued with the Government. If the respondents were not in physical possession of the lands, should they not be burdened with a liability to pay urban land tax, merely because the acquisition proceedings, under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, were set aside. By assigning tenable reasons, the Writ Court has held that the demand for the urban land tax, for the abovesaid period, from the respondents, as without jurisdiction. There is absolutely no grounds, warranting interference.
10.
In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS IX ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar skm TO:
1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms and Urban Land Tax, Tiruchirapalli 620 020.
3. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
4. The Tahsildar, Tiruchirapalli 620 002.
+1cc to Mr.Jayendrakrishnan, Advocate sr.no.46418 W.A.No.2443 of 2012 rv(co) nr 26/02/2018