The Secretary To Government v. Tmt.Rekha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.03.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.A.No.262 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.4428 of 2016 1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, St. George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

2.The Assistant Commissioner/ Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, No.153, Karuneegar Street, Adambakkam, Tambaram, Chennai - 88.

3.The Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Tambaram.

4.The Tahsildar, Alandur, Alandur Taluk.

.. Appellants/Respondents Vs.

Tmt.Rekha .. Respondent/petitioner Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter of Patents Act against the order dated 18.03.2013 in W.P.No.34449 of 2012. WP.No.34449 of 2012:Writ Petitin filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pryaing for a Writ of Certiorarified Mndamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Notification No.VI(1)/ 548/98 dated 15.4.1998 published in No.14 Part-VI Section-1 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Notification No.VI(1)/ 1728/97 ated 31.10.1997 in Part VI Section 1 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and Notification issued by the third respondent under Section 11(1) of Tamil Nadu

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 in Rc.2587/ 97 B. Dt.31.10.1997 and quash the same in view of abatement of acquisition proceedings under Section 3(2) and 4 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (Act 20 of 1999) and consequently direct the respondent to mutate the revenue records and issue patta in respect of Petitioner's property comprised in Survey No.286/1B1, admeasuring to an extent of 39 cents of 39 cents situated in Anagaputhur Village NO.128 in Saidapet Taluk, Kanchipuram District. For Appellants ..

Ms.A.Srijayanthi, Spl. Govt. Pleader For Respondent ..

Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan for M/s.B.Vijay

JUDGMENT

(delivered by SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, J.) Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, representing Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2.This intra court appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 18 March 2013 in W.P.No.34449 of 2012.

3.The writ petitioner/respondent herein preferred the writ petition, seeking quashment of the Notification No.VI(1)/548/98 dated 15 April, 1998 published in No.14 in Part-VI Section 1 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette in view of abatement of acquisition proceedings under Sections 3(2) and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 20 of 1999) and seeking for further direction to the respondents therein to mutate the revenue records and issue patta in respect of the writ petitioner's property.

4.The facts in brief for the purpose of adjudication are that indisputably, the land in question to an extent of 39 cents was purchased by the respondent's mother-in-law by way of registered sale deed on 23 November 1988 and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same till her demise on 22 September 2000. After her demise, the land in question devolved on the respondent as per Will dated 16 August 2000. Thus the respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. When the respondent herein made a representation for the grant of patta and mutation of revenue records, it was informed that proceedings under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (for short "the Act 1978" ) had been initiated in respect of the land in question. However, relying on the provisions of the Act 20 of 1999, it was stated that no further proceedings can be initiated for taking possession, if the possession remains with the owner. Even possession was not taken over by the authorities under the provisions of the Act 20 of 1999.

5.The learned Single Judge, referring to the judgment in Saraswathi Vs. The Principal Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Reforms1, came to the conclusion that since possession was never taken over and continued with the owner and thereafter, with the purchaser, the writ petitioner/respondent herein is entitled to benefits under the provisions of Act 20 of 1999 as the proceedings initiated under the Act, 1978 stood abated. 6.The question that arises for our consideration is as to whether possession of the land in question was taken over by the authorities at any point of time after initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 1978. 7.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants failed to produce any document in support of the contention that possession was taken over on 27 October 1998.

No material was produced before the learned Single Judge as well as before us to establish that apart from paper possession, as recorded in the Government records, there is any other overt act, whereunder the possession of the land in question was taken at any point of time before the provisions of the Act 20 of 1999 came into force.

8.The issue as to whether possession is deemed to have been taken, came into consideration in a batch of writ appeals arising from the land acquisition proceedings. This Division Bench in The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, rep by its Managing Director, No.331, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 034 and another Vs. iGate Global Solutions Limited, and another [W.A.Nos.1101 of 2014, etc., batch cases], by judgment dated 26th February, 2016, held as under :

" 60.The ratio deducible from the aforestated judicial pronouncements is that for taking over of possession of the land under Section 16 of the Old Act, 1894, the revenue authorities must establish by producing some evidence, i.e., either preparation of panchanama in the presence of the witnesses or some other documents.

The transfer certificates 2007 (4) CTC 714

subsequently prepared by the revenue authorities for delivering possession of the land in question to the Housing Board in absence of a witness or land owner, will not be sufficient to establish that possession of the lands was taken over from the land owners......"

9.In yet another case in State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and 3 others Vs. Sumathi Srinivas [W.A.No.1746 of 2014, dated 17th February 2015], it was observed as under : "34.It is to be noted that although the Appellants/Respondents claim that the possession of the land in question was vested with the Government under Section 11(3) of the Act on 18.11.1998 and subsequently handed over on 09.04.1999, the purported possession being handed over on 09.04.1999 in the form of land receipt, in law, is only a symbolic possession and as a matter of fact, actual/real possession was not taken.

As such, the resultant possession is either the land owner Lakshmi Kanthammal or anybody for that matter had not handed over the physical possession and also when the Appellants had only taken a symbolic possession and in reality, when the actual/ real possession of the land in issue is in the hands of the Respondent/ Petitioner, the Respondent/Petitioner is entitled to avail the benefits of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999."

10.In view of the aforestated legal provisions and also the indisputable facts involved herein, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order rendered by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar mmi

To 1.The Secretary to Government Revenue Department, St.George Fort Secretariat, Chennai 2.The Assistant Commissioner Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land tax NO.153 Karuneegar Street, Adambakkam Tambaram Chennai-88 3.The Competent Authority Urban Land ceiling Tambaram 4.The Tahsildar Alandur Alandur Taluk +5 cc to Mr.B.Vijay Advocate sr.15613 +1 cc to Government Pleader sr.16015 W.A.No.262 of 2016 aa16/03/2016