IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 2.2.2011

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI

W.P.Nos.28993 of 2007, 16690, 24933 to 24935,

25998 to 26002 of 2009

W.P.No.28993 of 2007

K.Radhalakshmi .. Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Secretary

Department of Revenue

Government of Tamilnadu

Secretariat, Fort St.George

Chennai 600 009.

2. The Principal Commissioner and

Commissioner of Land Reforms

Ezhilagam, Kamarajar Salai

Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

3. The Assistant Commissioner

Mylapore, ULC, 345, Arcot Road

Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024.

4. The Assistant Commissioner

(Urban Land Ceiling)

Door No.153, Karunagar Street

 Opposite to IOB Building

Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088.

(Impleaded by order dated 13.2.2008

made in MP:1/2008 in WP:28993/2007)

5. Telace Plants and Equipment Pvt. Ltd.

3/88, Mount Poonamallee Road

Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. .. Respondents

(Impleaded by order dated 4.8.2008

made in MP:2/2008 in WP:28993/2007)

and batch cases.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Subba Reddy

in WP:28993/2007

and 5th respondent

in WP:16690, 25998

to 26002 and 24993

to 24935 of 2009

For Petitioner : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram,

in WP:16990/2009 Senior Counsel, for M/s.C.Uma

For Petitioners in : Mr.S.Srinivasan

WP:25998 to 26002

and 24933 to 24935/09

 For Respondents : Mr.N.Senthil Kumar

1 to 4 in all WPs. Addl. Government Pleader

For 5th respondent : No appearance

in WP:28993/2007

and 6th respondent

in WP:16690, 25998

to 26002 and 24993

to 24935 of 2009

ORDER

The brief facts of the case, sans unnecessary details, leading to the filing of these writ
petitions are stated hereunder.

2.1. The petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007, who is the fifth respondent in all other writ
petitions, viz., K.Radhalakshmi, is stated to have purchased 1.5 Acres of land comprised in
Survey Nos.151/1 and 151/2 situated at Ramapuram Village on 1.1.1976 under a registered
document, and is stated to have been in possession and enjoyment of the same along with her
family members. The extent contains land and buildings.

2.2. The said K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) is stated to have

been holding major share in M/s.Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, a company later
impleaded as fifth respondent in W.P.No.28993 of 2007, which company has also been arrayed
as sixth respondent in other writ petitions, and she applied for transfer of one acre excess land to
the said company in the year 1978 as per the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1978, (Tamil Nadu Act XXIV of 1978), (for brevity, "the Principal Act"). It is her case that
the Government passed orders determining the excess land under the Principal Act, but the
Government has not taken possession of the excess land and she and her legal heirs are in
possession of the property. In the meantime, Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited was
closed and the lease given to it was surrendered.

2.3. It is stated that in the year 2002, the petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007 has applied
to the Commissioner of Land Reforms, the second respondent, for transfer of land and the
second respondent is stated to have cleared the same and referred to the Assistant Commissioner,
the third respondent and therefore, according to her, the second respondent has accepted the
physical possession of the lands with her. She is stated to have built up around 60 industrial
sheds in the year 1998 and applied for regularization and in the 60 industries operating in the
premises, around 1000 workers are engaged. It is stated that since the authorities required
issuance of patta for the purpose of further construction, she applied to the Government for
releasing the property from the purview of the Principal Act. However, she along with her legal
heirs have been paying the statutory duties to the public authorities like the Panchayat.

2.4. The Principal Act was enacted for the purpose of fixation of ceiling limit of urban
lands and taking possession of the excess vacant lands and ultimately, the Principal Act came to
be repealed by the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 20
of 1999), (for brevity "the Repeal Act"). As per the Repeal Act, the lands which were covered
under the Principal Act, being the excess lands, possession of which was not taken over by the
Government, were directed to be restored to the original owners after refund of the amount
received and therefore, according to the petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007, the Government
has no right or power to retain possession, since the Principal Act itself was repealed and
possession continued to be with her and her family members and according to the Repeal Act,
the taking over of possession from the land owners under the Principal Act must be physical
possession and not merely vesting of right with the government. Therefore, according to her,
since possession of the entire land has not been taken over by the government at any point of
time, she is entitled to restoration of ownership and it is in those circumstances, she has
requested the respondent/Government to release the land so as to enable her to get patta.

2.5. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007 that the company floated by
her, viz., Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, does not require the land and the land
has been surrendered to her and she is paying the statutory duties. Since the company was
unable to pay the amount to the Government and in the meantime, the said company has been
closed, she undertook to pay the instalment amounts to be paid by the company and because the
property has not been released, she was unable to get the building plan approved for further
construction and therefore, she has filed the said writ petition in W.P.No.28993 of 2007 for a
declaration that she is entitled to retain the lands measuring an extent of 4131.598 Square Meters
comprised in Survey No.151/1 Part, Ramapuram Village, as per Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act
to enable her to get patta on the grounds that the Commissioner under Principal Act has accepted
that the possession of the land and building are with her; that since the company to which the
petitioner transferred the land stood closed, she is entitled to retain the land and therefore, patta
should be transferred to her name; and that the Repeal Act does not provide any saving clause
and in fact benefits have been conferred under Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act and the
proceedings under the Principal Act itself are not over and by virtue of the Repeal Act all
proceedings stand abated.

3.1. The other writ petitioners, including the petitioner in W.P.No.16690 of 2009, who
are occupying various industrial sheds of different extents in the total extent of 4131.598 Square
Meters of land, are stated to be the tenants in respect of those sheds constructed by the said
K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007), who is arrayed as fifth respondent in
their writ petitions.

3.2. While it is admitted that the said K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of

2007) has purchased total extent of 1.5 Acres in Survey Nos.151/1 and 151/2 under registered
document from Late Sri Gemini Ganesan, it is their case that after the Principal Act came into
existence on 3.8.1976, in respect of which various provisions were notified on 17.5.1978, out of
1.5 Acres of land purchased by her, one Acre, which is to the extent of 4131.598 Square Meters
in Survey No.151/1 Part of Ramapuram Village, was declared to be excess land in her hand and
that was sub-divided into Survey Nos.151/1B and 151/1C and the extent of 4131.598 Square
Meters, sought to be acquired under the Principal Act, was brought in Survey No.151/1B.

3.3. While it is admitted that K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) has

applied for exemption from the Principal Act, it is stated that she floated the company called
Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited and she was holding major share in it and her
husband was a Director and on behalf of the company, an application was made to the first
respondent/Government on 24.11.1977 requesting to transfer the said excess land in favour of
the company for industrial purposes. On behalf of the first respondent proposals were sent on
17.5.1979 to acquire the excess land from K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007)
as per the provisions of Sections 9 to 11 of the Principal Act and transfer it to Telace Plants and
Equipment Private Limited for industrial purposes as per Section 24(4) of the Principal Act.
 3.4. According to the said petitioners, the acquisition has been completed and the
property is vested absolutely with the Government, which is stated to have taken possession on
5.8.1983, as confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Kundrathur, Chennai
600 088 in the proceedings dated 8.1.2008 and 2.9.2008, and the excess land was allotted to
Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited by the Government as per Section 24(4) of the
Principal Act under G.O.Ms.No.657, Revenue Department, dated 19.4.1990.

3.5. It is stated that K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) has received

25% of the compensation amount on 17.3.1984 amounting to Rs.5,062.50 towards the
acquisition and it is stated that on 5.4.1987, she has received first four instalments towards
compensation amount, amounting to Rs.1802/- and she refused to receive the balance amount,
viz., 5th to 15th instalment, and the same was deposited with the Revenue Department.

3.6. It is stated that Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, to which the lands
were allotted for industrial purpose, has not utilised the land for the said purpose and ultimately,
the company came to be closed and wound up and therefore, G.O.Ms.No.657, Revenue
Department, dated 19.4.1990 is liable to be withdrawn. It is stated that even though
K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) ceased to be the owner and possession
was taken over by the Revenue Department, she constructed industrial sheds on the subject
property and the portions were handed over to the said petitioners as tenants and according to
them, they have been running the business in these years employing more than 1000 persons in
all and they were all paying rents to K.Radhalakshmi towards the use of the industrial sheds by
obtaining registration certificates, SSI licence, electricity connection, etc.

3.7. The Repeal Act has repealed the Principal Act and as per Section 3(2) of the Repeal
Act, in respect of the lands deemed to have vested under the Principal Act as per Section 11(3) of
the Principal Act, in respect of which possession has not been taken over by the State
Government and amount has been paid by the State Government as compensation, such lands
shall not be restored unless the amount paid if any is refunded to the State Government.

3.8. According to them, K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007), after the

Repeal Act has been enacted, has applied to the second respondent on 2.12.2002 requesting re-
allotment, since possession has not been taken over from her, in respect of which no action was
taken by the first and second respondents due to the reason that the first respondent has already
taken over possession from the fifth respondent as per Section 11(5) of the Principal Act.
Therefore, according to them, since possession has been taken over by the Government and
handed over by way of transfer to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, the interim
order of status-quo passed by this Court on 13.2.2008 in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.26993 of
2007 filed by K.Radhalakshmi is of no avail, as she has not been in possession.

3.9. It is stated that the said petitioners, through their association, viz., Telace Industrial
Estate Industries Owners Association, have made representation to the government on 6.10.2007
requesting to allot the individual area, which is on lease with the members of the association for
industrial purposes and when that representation was not considered, the said association filed
W.P.No.36047 of 2007, which was disposed by this Court on 3.12.2007, by directing the first
respondent to consider the said representation and pass orders, on condition that the individual
members of the association shall file individual representations. Accordingly, it is stated that the
said petitioners have made individual representations requesting for allotment of various extents
of land which are in their possession for using the same for industrial purposes at the prevalent
price.

3.10. It is stated that the petitioners have been paying rent to K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner
in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) till May, 2008 without default. Since K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in
W.P.No.28993 of 2007), in the month of May, 2008, asked the petitioners to vacate the premises
and threatened to disconnect electricity supply, some of the tenants have moved the civil court
challenging the eviction and rents are being paid to the credit of the civil court.

3.11. It is stated that the said entire area is covered under the industrial zone as per the
master plan of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. On an information received
under the Right to Information Act from the Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Ceiling),
Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088, the said petitioners learnt that the subject property has been
handed over to the Revenue Department and it continues to vest with the government and the
same was never handed over to K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007).

3.12. As per the direction given by this Court on 3.12.2007, the second respondent passed
an order on 20.9.2008 stating that since the writ petition filed by K.Radhalakshmi is pending, no
order can be passed and it was thereafter, the said petitioners have filed implead petitions in
W.P.No.28993 of 2007 filed by K.Radhalakshmi and the implead petitions were all directed to
be heard at the time of final disposal of W.P.No.28993 of 2007.
 3.13. The said petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the second respondent dated
20.9.2008 refusing to pass orders as per the earlier direction given by this Court on 3.12.2007 in
W.P.No.36047 of 2007. According to them, their representations should have been considered
independently, since K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) is not entitled to re-
allotment as per the provisions of the Repeal Act, where re-allotment is provided only in a case
where the government has not taken possession of land and in the case on hand, possession has
been taken over from K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) in the year 1983
itself. Therefore, the petitioners have filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.16690, 24933 to 24935,
25998 to 26002 of 2009 for a direction against the first respondent/government to allot the lands
in their possession measuring various extents from and out of an extent of 4131.598 Square
Meters in Survey No.151/1B, Ramapuram Village, Thiruvallur District to them.

4. Even though the government has not filed any counter, the learned Additional
Government Pleader has produced the files.

5.1. It is the contention of Mr.P.Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007, viz., the original land owner who purchased the property in
the year 1976, who has been arrayed as fifth respondent in all other writ petitions, that admittedly
the physical possession of the excess lands as per the Principal Act was not taken over by the
government and therefore, by virtue of the Repeal Act, which came into force in 1999, when
possession has not been taken, the land ceiling proceedings stand abated and the only right of the
government is to get back the amount paid, including the compensation. It is his submission that
there are records to show that even as on date the property tax has been paid by her to the tax
authorities and records are available up to 2007 to that effect.

5.2. It is his submission that on filing of the writ petition in W.P.No.28993 of 2007, there
has been an interim order protecting the possession of the property, which is still with her, and
the status-quo order passed has been confirmed by a detailed order dated 11.8.2008, by which
there was an order of injunction also restraining the respondents from interfering with the
possession and enjoyment of the property by his client.

5.3. He would also rely upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Angoori Devi v. State
of U.P. and others, JT 2000 (Supp 1) SC 295 to substantiate his contention that when once
possession has not been taken over by the government, the owner who is in possession at the
time of the Ceiling Act is entitled to continue and retain possession.
 5.4. According to him, as per the Repeal Act, there must be record to show that the State
has taken physical possession of the surplus land and he would rely upon the judgment in [2000]
6 SCC 325. He would also rely upon the judgments in 2002 (2) CTC 716, 2004 (4) MLJ 676 and
2006 (4) LW 784, apart from many other unreported judgements to substantiate his contention in
that regard.

5.5. He would submit that as far as the other writ petitioners are concerned, they are
admittedly tenants under K.Radhalakshmi and in a dispute between her and the government, the
tenants are third parties. In this regard, he would rely upon the decision in 2001 (3) CTC 520. He
further added that the tenants only want to usurp the property belonging to K.Radhalakshmi,
which cannot be permitted in law.

5.6. He would also submit that by no stretch of imagination the other writ petitioners,
who are tenants under K.Radhalakshmi, can claim right over any portion of the property either
by allotment or otherwise, since the relationship is only that of landlord and tenant.

6.1. Per contra, it is the contention of Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.16690 of 2009, by referring to Section 11(5) of the
Principal Act, that when as per the Principal Act the excess land is vested with the government,
which has become final, especially when the compensation has been passed on, by a combined
reading of Sections 11(3) and 12(1) of the Act, the possession is deemed to have been taken,
particularly when what was available was only a vacant land. She would rely upon the decision
in [2008] 4 SCC 594 to substantiate her contention in respect of legal possession, especially
regarding vacant land. She would also reply upon 2009 (4) LW 826 in this regard.

6.2. It is her submission that when once it is admitted by K.Radhalakshmi herself that
Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, which is a company having independent entity, by
way of allotment by the government under Section 24(4) of the Principal Act has taken
possession, it means that physical possession has been taken away from K.Radhalakshmi as its
owner and handed over to another person, viz., Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited,
and it is no more open to K.Radhalakshmi to say that she continues to be in possession.
According to her, even if Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited is controlled by
K.Radhalakshmi, inasmuch as Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited is a legal person, to
which possession has been handed over by the government, if Telace Plants and Equipment
Private Limited has been liquidated, the property has to vest with the government and
K.Radhalakshmi cannot claim herself to be in possession at all.

6.3. She would also submit that when once the government legally has allotted land to
Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited by G.O.Ms.No.657, Revenue Department, dated
19.4.1990, it is not open to K.Radhalakshmi to continue to claim to be in possession, because the
government by allotment of land to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited is deemed to
have taken physical possession from K.Radhalakshmi and given to Telace Plants and Equipment
Private Limited. When once the company and shareholders are not one and the same, it is her
submission that under the Repeal Act, it relates only about the original owner and not the allottee
and since, Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited has become subsequent allottee under
Section 24(4) of the Principal Act, the original owner does not come into the picture at all.

6.4. In effect, it is her submission that when once it is admitted that possession has been
handed over to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited for industrial purposes,
K.Radhalakshmi loses her physical possession and that itself is sufficient to show that vesting of
the property with the government has been completed as per the provisions of the Principal Act.

7.1. It is the contention of Mr.S.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
in W.P.Nos.24933 to 24935, 25998 to 26002 of 2009, while adopting the submissions made by
Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel, that the writ petition filed by
K.Radhalakshmi is not maintainable for the simple reason that she has alienated her right to
Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, in which she is only a shareholder and therefore,
she cannot claim herself to be the owner of the company.

7.2. According to him, when Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited was
liquidated, the property is deemed to have vested with the government and it is for the
government to decide about the allotment of land to others, after the Repeal Act has come into
existence and therefore, it is not open to K.Radhalakshmi to question the rights of the tenants to
claim allotment from the government.

7.3. He would also insist that as per G.O.Ms.No.657, Revenue Department, dated
19.4.1990, the vesting of property with Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited has
already been completed and there is no question of K.Radhalakshmi claiming herself to be in
possession.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007, the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.16690 of 2009, the learned
counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.24933 to 24935, 25998 to 26002 of 2009 and the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Government, perused the files and given by
anxious thought to the issue involved in this case.

9. The purchase by K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) in respect of

1.5 Acres or 27 grounds or 66000 sq.ft. of agricultural land in Survey Nos.151/1 Part and 151/2
Part, Ramapuram Village from its previous owner Gemini R.Ganesan under a registered sale
deed dated 1.1.1976 is not in dispute and the same is on record.

10. The Principal Act which came into force with effect from 3.8.1976 has fixed a ceiling
limit in respect of urban lands and inasmuch as the lands purchased by K.Radhalakshmi
(petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) are covered under the Madras Urban Agglomeration in
Category 1 of Schedule 1 of the Principal Act, admittedly, as per the Principal Act, out of 1.5
Acres of land purchased by K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007), one Acre
has been declared as surplus, beyond the ceiling limit and under Section 11 of the Principal Act,
the excess vacant land beyond ceiling limit is to be acquired by the State Government.

11. Section 11(3) of the Principal Act, which is as follows:

"Section 11. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit.-

(1) and (2) ....

(3) At any time after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) the competent
authority may, by notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee declare that the excess
vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section (1) shall, with effect from
such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State
Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have
vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date
so specified."
contemplates such notification to be given under Section 11(1) of the Principal Act and on such
notification, the excess land is deemed to have vested absolutely with the State Government free
from all encumbrances.

12. As it is seen in the file, the publication of notification under Section 11(3) of the
Principal Act in respect of the excess lands was on 17.8.1983 and it is stated in the report filed
under Section 24(4) of the Principal Act that the government has taken possession from
K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) on 24.11.1983, fixing the total value
payable at Rs.20,250/- and the acquired land was given sub-division No.151/1B, Ramapuram
and such entry has also been made in the revenue records.

13. It appears that on behalf of Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, in which
K.Radhalakshmi was holding a major share along with her husband, a request was made to the
government to allot the said acquired lands to it for industrial purposes. On behalf of Telace
Plants and Equipment Private Limited, a letter has been addressed on 25.11.1983 to the
Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, requesting to sell the excess vacant
land acquired from K.Radhalakshmi to them.

14. Section 24(1) of the Principal Act empowers the State Government to allot the excess
lands acquired by it to any person or industry and such allottee will be person in lawful
possession. Section 24(4) of the Act, which is as follows:

"Section 24. Disposal of vacant land acquired under the Act.-

(1) to (3) ...

(4) Where any vacant land which is in the possession of any person for any purpose relating to,
or in connection with, any industry but owned by any other person, is declared as excess vacant
land under this Chapter, such person in possession of such vacant land shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in any of the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, continue to possess such
land under the State Government under such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the State
Government.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section,-

(i) the expression "to possess vacant land" shall have the same meaning as in the Explanation
under sub-section (2) of Section 20;
(ii) the expression "industry" shall have the same meaning as in clause (b) of the Explanation
under sub-section (1)."

enables such person to whom the allotment has been given for industrial purpose to continue to
possess the land under the State Government, as per the terms and conditions of allotment.

15. By virtue of such power conferred under Section 24 of the Principal Act, the
Government has passed G.O.Ms.No.657, Revenue Department, dated 19.4.1990, directing the
Collector to hand over possession to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited. The said
government order is as follows:

"M/s.Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited has requested allotment of lands measuring
4050 sq.mtrs. in S.No.151/1B of Ramapuram Village, Madras Urban Agglomeration to
M/s.Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, Madras.

Government have examined the proposal and under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 ( Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978) read with Rule 23 of the Tamil
Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978 the Government allot the lands
measuring 4050 Sq.Mtrs. In S.No.151/1B of Ramapuram Village, Madras Urban Agglomeration
to Messrs.Telace Plants and Equipment (Private) Limited, Ramapuram, Madras on collection of
one and half times of market value, subject to the conditions indicated below:-

(i) Messrs.Telace Plants and Equipment (Private) Limited, Madras shall pay the one and half
times of market value of the land, as land value, and for the value of trees, wells and structures, if
any.

(ii) Messrs.Telace Plants and Equipment (Private) Limited, Madras should utilise the land for
the purpose specified within a period of one year from the date of taking possession of the land.
The lands shall not be utilised for any purpose other than the said purpose.

(iii) The lands allotted shall not be transferred by way of sale, gift, mortgage, lease or otherwise
to any person or institution.

(iv) The land value shall be paid within 30 days from date of receipt or orders fixing the land
value.

(v) If Messrs.Telace Plants and Equipment (Private) Limited, Madras fails to remit the amount
within a period of thirty days, the allotment is liable to be cancelled, without assigning any
reason.
(vi) the possession of the lands shall be handed over by the Collector of Chengai Anna District to
M/s.Telace Plants and Equipment (Private) Limited on remittance of value of land.

(vii) in the event of Messrs.Telace Plants and Equipment (Private) Limited, Ramapuram,
Madras not complying with any of the conditions of allotment, the Government shall after giving
an opportunity to them to be heard in the matter cancel the allotment and the lands shall revest to
Government free from all encumbrances. No compensation shall be payable in respect of any
buildings or other superstructure constructed on such lands, re-vesting to the Government under
this clause.

The land value shall be credited to "0029 Land Revenue -00-Revenue 800-other Receipts-AO
Receipts under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (D.P.Code 0029
800 AO 0007).

The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration is also requested to

furnish the one and half times of market value in consultation with the Collector of Chengai-
Anna District for approval of the Government. He is also requested to issue suitable instructions
to the Collector of Chengai Anna District in this regard."

16. Even though K.Radhalakshmi is stated to be holding a major share in Telace Plants
and Equipment Private Limited along with her husband, being the Director, it remains an
admitted fact that the said Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited is a company
incorporated under the Companies Act, having an independent legal personality, independent of
its shareholders, who constituted the corporate personality.

17. Even though on file I am unable to find out anything to show that the authority under
the Principal Act have in fact taken physical possession from K.Radhalakshmi in respect of the
excess lands, by virtue of the government order passed as per Section 24 of the Principal Act, the

possession has been directed to be handed over to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited
through the District Collector. It is also not in dispute and admitted by K.Radhalakshmi that
Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited has taken possession of the vacant land which was
acquired from her under the Principal Act and declared as excess from her.
 18. However, it has been the stand of K.Radhalakshmi that she continues to be in
possession of the entire extent of land by putting up industrial sheds by herself and it is her case,
as it is also evidenced by the various lease deeds executed by her during March, 2003 in favour
of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16690, 24933 to 24935, 25998 to 26002 of 2009, who are the
tenants, wherein the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16690, 24933 to 24935, 25998 to 26002 of 2009,
who have asked for allotment of sheds in their favour from the Government, they have accepted
that the said K.Radhalakshmi, being the lessor, is absolute owner and it is also not in dispute that
they have been paying rent to her till 2008, when the said K.Radhalakshmi has filed a suit in
O.S.No.161 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur for an injunction
against the tenants from putting up or altering any construction. She has also filed
simultaneously suits against the said petitioners, who are tenants, for possession and all the suits
are pending.

19. The crucial point under this factual scenario to be considered is by virtue of the
advent of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Central Act 15 of 1999),
based on which the State Government has passed the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which has received the assent of the Governor on 16.6.1999, the
date on which it has come into force, whether the said K.Radhalakshmi should be deemed to
continue to be in possession, in which event, by virtue of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, her
possession will be protected.

20. In this regard, it is relevant to extract Section 3 of the Repeal Act, which is as
follows:

"Section 3. Savings: (1) The repeal of the Principal Act shall not effect -

(a) the vesting of any vacant land under sub section (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;

(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 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 authorized by the
State Government in this behalf or by competent authority; and

(b) any amount has been paid by the State Government with respect to such land, then, such land
shall not be restored unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the State Government."

21. Therefore, by virtue of Section 11(3) of the Principal Act, after declaring excess of
vacant land, if possession has been taken from K.Radhalakshmi by the State Government, the
Repeal Act will not have any effect, viz., there is no obligation on the part of the State
Government to restore possession to K.Radhalakshmi if possession was taken. On the other
hand, even by virtue of Section 11(3) of the Principal Act when on acquisition the vesting on the
State Government was deemed, but nevertheless when possession was not taken over by the
State Government, the Government is entitled only to get back the refund of amount paid
towards compensation for such acquisition of the excess land and not to restore possession.

22. It is to be noted that after the government passed the government order transferring
the land to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited and directing the District Collector to
hand over possession to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, there are no records, as it
is seen in the file, to show that the Collector has handed over possession to Telace Plants and
Equipment Private Limited. Further, even much after the government order transferring the
excess land in favour of Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, the said K.Radhalakshmi
herself has executed lease deed in the year 2003 in respect of various portions of land to other
writ petitioners, who have admitted that the said K.Radhalakshmi continues to be the owner of
the lands by paying rent up to 2008, till the said K.Radhalakshmi initiated proceedings against
them for eviction.

23. As I have stated earlier, there is nothing on file to show that on passing order under
Section 11(3) of the Principal Act, physical possession has been taken over from
K.Radhalakshmi in respect of the excess lands either by the government or other officials
authorised on behalf of the government. The factum of acquisition from K.Radhalakshmi, stated
to have been in the year 1983, and the factum of transferring the property under Section 24 of the
Principal Act to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited in the year 1990 by the
government order are all unassailably available by virtue of the documents, but there are no
records to show that physical possession of the land has been taken over from K.Radhalakshmi
by the government.
 24. By long line of judgements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Courts in India,
it has been held that when possession of the vacant land has not been taken over by the
Government, the proceedings under the Principal Act abate after the Repeal Act has come into
existence. It was in Angoori Devi v. State of U.P. and others, JT 2000 (Supp 1) SC 295, the
Supreme Court has held as follows:

"2. These cases relate to the interpretation of different provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act. During the pendency of these appeals in this Court, the Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act has been repealed by Act 15 of 1999 and the State of U.P. Also has adopted
the same by a Resolution. In view of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Repealing Act
and the fact that the possession of the vacant land has not been taken over by the State
Government, which is asserted by the Counsel appearing for the appellants and is also apparent
from the interim orders passed by this Court, the question for consideration no longer survives."

25. That was also the view of the Supreme Court in Pt.Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public
Charitable Trust v. State of U.P. and others, [2000] 6 SCC 325. The Supreme Court has held as
follows:

"5. Since there is nothing on record to indicate that the State had taken possession over the
surplus land, the present proceedings have to be abated and are hereby abated under Section 4 of
the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999."

26. That was also asserted by the Supreme Court in Mukarram Ali Khan v. State of U.P.
and others, 2007-4-LW-797, as follows:

"6. In view of the affidavit filed by the appellant to which no objection has been filed, undisputed
position is that the State has not taken the possession over the surplus land. Therefore, the
proceedings have to be treated to have abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act."

27. In Ghasitey Lal Sahu and another v. Competent Authority under the Urban (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, 1976, U.P. and another, [2004] 13 SCC 452, it was held as follows:

"1. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants placed before us a copy of the letter
dated 5.1.2000 addressed to the appellants by Narender Nath Chaudhary, Assistant Engineer,
Urban Land Ceiling, Kanpur, wherein it is clearly stated that the proceedings in this case will
abate under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (for short "the
Act") as the proceedings have not yet been initiated. The learned counsel for the appellants
urged that having regard to Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999 (for short "Act of 1999), the proceedings abate. She also submitted that the possession of
the land in question has not been taken. She further submitted that, all along, there had been
interim orders in favour of the appellants and this Court also had granted interim order on
9.2.1998.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents states that in view of the letter aforementioned, the
appeal may be disposed of.

3. Under these circumstances, having regard to Section 4 of the Act of 1999, the proceedings
under the Act abate. Nothing more is required to be done in this case. In this view, the
impugned order will not have any effect and shall not remain in operation."

28. While construing the term "taking over possession by the State Government", a
Division Bench of this Court in Sree Jayalakshmi Brick Industries v. The Special Commissioner
and Secretary to Government and 3 others, 2009-4-LW-819, has rejected the contention raised
on behalf of the government that symbolic possession is sufficient and actual take over of
possession is not contemplated under the Principal Act, as follows:

"22. The learned Special Government Pleader vehemently argued that symbolic possession is
sufficient when the actual take over of possession is not contemplated under the Act. We are not
in agreement with that submission in view of the categorical pronouncements of this Court
referred to above."

29. The absence of any savings clause in the Repeal Act, which is intended to preserve
from destruction certain rights, while it does not give any new right, in the absence of taking
over of physical possession under the Principal Act after the land is declared surplus, the Repeal
Act cannot be stated to confer any better right to the Government. That was also the view of this
Court, as held by A.Kulasekaran,J., as He then was, in Simpson and General Finance Company
Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another, 2006-4-LW-787. While construing the savings
clause, it was held as follows:

"12. "Saving clause" is used to preserve from destruction certain rights, remedies or privileges
already existing not that it gives any new right. The assumption is that legislature enact laws with
complete knowledge of existing laws pertaining to the same subject. The failure to add saving
clause indicates that the intent was not to save the existing legislature. In this case, Section 21 (2)
was not saved in the repeal Act."
 30. In V.Gurunathan v. Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax and Ceiling,
Tambaram Area, Chennai and others, [2007] 5 MLJ 103, this Court has held as follows:

"Mere vesting of the land in the Government is not sufficient. Taking actual possession of the
land and payment of compensation therefor to the land owner, are crucial factors which, if not
done prior to the coming into force of the Repeal Act of 1999, proceedings initiated under the
Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, would abate."

31. Again, this Court in Saraswathi and another v. Principal Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai and others, [2007] 5 MLJ 1240 has held that the land
acquisition proceedings would stand abated if it is not shown by the State that actual physical
possession of the land in question was taken over and due compensation paid before the Repeal
Act has come into existence.

33. S.Jagadeesan,J., as He then was, in C.V.Narasimhan v. The Government of Tamil

Nadu and two others, 2002-2-LW-764, has held as follows:

"8. ....... it is clear that the repealed Act gives certain right to the owners of the land where the
physical possession of such land continues to be with the owner. The statutory vesting is of no
relevance. In the case on hand, the petitioner claims to be in possession of the disputed land.
When sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the repealed Act specifically makes a provision to refund
the compensation and retain possession if possession remains with the land owner. Hence, it is
for the first respondent to consider the question of physical possession and decide the issue.
Virtually, the first respondent has failed to consider this vital factor. This Court is of the view
that the non consideration of this vital factor by the first respondent will amount to an error
apparent on the face of the record, as well as the impugned order suffers from non application of
mind with regard to the legal implications of the repealed Act."

33. Therefore, by a catena of judgments it is clear that unless it is proved that the State
Government has taken physical possession of excess land after declaring the excess as per the
provisions of the Principal Act by initiating the acquisition proceedings, and if it is proved that
physical possession continues to vest with the previous owner, who is in enjoyment and
possession after coming into force of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, by which the proceedings
under the Principal Act stand abated, the owner is certainly entitled to have the benefit of the said
provision and continue to be in possession.
 34. On the facts of the present case, there are records abundantly to show that the
K.Radhalakshmi has been paying property tax in her name throughout, viz., even as on March,
2007, and even the other petitioners, who are the tenants under her, have clearly admitted the
ownership of K.Radhalakshmi at least till 2008, up to which time they have been continuously
paying rent to her, till, of course, she has initiated action for eviction against them. The
overwhelming evidence of physical possession in the hands of K.Radhalakshmi is apparent on
the face of the entire factual aspect as such. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.16690 of 2009 and the learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.Nos.24933 to 24935, 25998 to 26002 of 2009, who are all tenants under K.Radhalakshmi,
that there is a deemed taking over of possession by the combined reading of Sections 12(1) and
11(3) of the Principal Act, has no meaning. On the factual matrix, while it is true that five
instalments of amounts have been sent by the State after declaring excess of vacant lands, it
remains an admitted fact that K.Radhalakshmi has not received the amount as contemplated
under Section 12(1) of the Principal Act.

35. There is one another aspect that has to be considered here. While it is the stand of the
State Government that in the year 1983 the surplus land of K.Radhalakshmi was declared and
possession was taken, in respect of the same there is absolutely no record regarding taking over
of physical possession. Likewise, even though it is stated that in the year 1990, transfer was
effected as per Section 24 of the Principal Act in favour of Telace Plants and Equipment Private
Limited, which is virtually owned by K.Radhalakshmi as major shareholder along with her
husband, for handing over of such possession to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited,
there are no evidence and in spite of all those aspects, the tenants have chosen to enter lease
agreements with K.Radhalakshmi in the year 2003, thereby recognizing her possession, title and
ownership over the lands. If such lease agreements were entered by the said tenants with Telace
Plants and Equipment Private Limited, through K.Radhalakshmi as its Director, it would have
been certainly a different issue. But the fact remains that the tenancy agreements were entered
by the tenants with K.Radhalakshmi not representing the company, but individually in her name
and it was after she has taken steps to evict the tenants, the tenants, for the first time, having
entered lease agreements with K.Radhalakshmi in the year 2003 and paying rent continuously in
these years, have taken a diametrically opposed stand as if the land except 50 Cents of land is
belonging to the government. That only speaks volume about the conduct of the tenants.

36. In the communication of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Urban

Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax addressed to the Secretary to Government, Revenue
Department in Rc.No.17630/2001 (2), dated 9.12.2002, while referring to the claim of
K.Radhalakshmi that she has been in possession throughout, it is stated that the government
order dated 17.5.1979 should be simultaneous to the date of taking over of land and allotting to
the company, viz., Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, and the taking over should be
construed as 1983. The operative portion of the letter is as follows:

"The records available also show that the Government Order dated 17.5.1979 is a simultaneous
order wherein the land should be taken over from Tmt.K.Radhalakshmi, the present petitioner
and should be allotted to her company, namely Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited.
Hence, the date of taking over of the land by the Government in 1983 may be taken as the date of
allotment."

37. This shows that it is not even the case of the government that physical possession has
been taken over, but it was only a deemed possession on record and even on record, except an
endorsement made in one of the files, there is no evidence to show that physical possession has
been taken from K.Radhalakshmi.

For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered view that inasmuch as the State
Government has never taken physical possession from K.Radhalakshmi as per the Principal Act
and before the Repeal Act came into existence, as per the Repeal Act the entire proceedings
initiated under the Principal Act stand abated. With the result, K.Radhalakshmi is entitled to
retain possession of the extent of 4131.598 Square Meters comprised in Survey No.151/1 Part,
Ramapuram Village as per Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16690,
24933 to 24935, and 25998 to 26002 of 2009, viz., tenants, who have filed writ petitions for a
direction are not entitled to any relief as claimed.

In the result, W.P.No.28993 of 2007 stands allowed and W.P.Nos.16690, 24933 to

24935, and 25998 to 26002 of 2009 stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.5 of
2008 in W.P.No.28993 of 2007, M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.16690 of 2009, M.P.No.1 of 2009
in W.P.No.24933 of 2009, M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.24934 of 2009, M.P.No.1 of 2009 in
W.P.No.24935 of 2009, M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.25998 of 2009, M.P.No.1 of 2009 in
W.P.No.25999 of 2009, M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.26000 of 2009, M.P.No.1 of 2009 in
W.P.No.26001 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.26002 of 2009 are closed.

Cited case 30801/2003 in madras high court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

 DATED: 29.01.2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

WRIT PETITION No.31801 of 2003

V.Gurunathan
S/o.Viswanatha Iyer,
rep.by Power of Attorney,
Agent G.Asokan,
S/o.Gopala Krishnan,
Residing at Door No.6,
Vigneswar Nagar,
3rd Street, Madipakkam,
Chennai - 600 091. ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Assistant Commissioner of

Urban Land Tax and Ceiling,
Tambaram Area, Sannadhi Street,
Adambakkam, Chennai - 600 088.

2. The Principal Commissioner and

Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

3. The Government of Tamil Nadu ,

rep.by the Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department , Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009. ... Respondents

The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
***
For petitioner : Mr.G.Ravishankar
For respondents : Mr.C.Thirumaran - G.A.
***

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the connected records of the first respondent relating to his order
U/S.9(5) of the Principal Act, in his proceedings R.C.7794/88-B, dated 12.07.1990, declaring an
extent of 1400 Sq.Mts. of land as excess vacant land in S.No.192 of pozhichalur village,
the notice issued by the first respondent in his Ref.R.C.7794/88-B, dated 11.03.1993, in
Form VII requiring the land owner to deliver vacant possession to the Tahsildar, Saidapet
(Certified copies issued on 16.11.2003) and the notice issued by him in his Ref.B/1779/95.C,
in form XIV U/S.12(7) of the Act, dated20.09.2003, directing the land owner to attend the
enquiry for claiming compensation and quash the same so far as the petitioner is concerned
and declaring that all proceedings taken by the first respondent to acquire the alleged excess
vacant land shall abate U/S.4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal
Act, 20 of 1999.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.
3.The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:-
The land in Survey No.192 of pozhichalur village measuring to an extent of 72 cents or
2900 Sq.Mts. was owned by the petitioner on the date of the commencement of the Tamil
Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1978,(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and it
has been put
to use for locating and running a blue metal industry in the name of "Sri Vinayaga Agencies"
and registered as a Small Scale Industrial Unit, which was leased out to one Natarajan for
running the Unit. Consequent to the commencement of the Act, necessary returns were filed
and the petitioner had sought for exemption by applying to the State Government.
The application had been processed by the Director of Industries and Commerce. By his
letter R.C.No.2404/GA4/96, dated 08.04.1996. The General Manager District Industries Centre
had recommended the firm's proposal for exemption to hold the excess vacant land under
Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. While the matter was under process, the first respondent had
issued a notice under Section 9(4) of the Act duly preparing the statement under Section 9(1) of
the Act arriving at an excess extent of 900 Sq.Mts., allowing the petitioner to hold 2000
Sq.Mts. of land , as the entitlement area. He had sent the notice to the land owner, on
14.09.1981, calling him to attend the enquiry and to file his objections, if any, with regard to
the said notice. Without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard in person as
contemplated under Section 9(5) of the Act, an exparte order had been passed by the first
respondent in his proceedings, dated 19.08.1989. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred an
appeal under Section 33 of the Act and the appellate authority had set aside the ex parte order
and remanded the case for fresh disposal as stated in the Special Commissioner's Order
Letter No.J2/52948/89, dated 09.10.1990. Accordingly, the revised orders had been passed in
the first respondent's proceedings R.C.7794/88/B, dated 12.07.1990. Further, in pursuance of
the said order, notice under Section 11(5) of the Act, dated 11.03.1993, is said to have been sent
to the petitioner with the wrong address.However, no notice under Section 11(6) of the Act was
issued to the person in occupation of the land and actual possession of the land had not
been taken from the land owner.
4. The petitioner had submitted a representation in his letter, dated 26.04.1994, requesting the
State Government to grant exemption to hold the alleged excess vacant land and to use the
same for industrial purposes, after taking into consideration the total number of his family
members and the extent of entitlement of area. The State Government, in their letter
No.70872/Na.Nee.03(i) 94-4-Revenue, dated 16.10.1998, had rejected the request of the
land owner. Thereafter, the petitioner land owner had made another representation to the
State Government in his letter, dated 20.04.1999. However, no orders have been passed on
the representation made by the petitioner and the matter relating to the land in question has
been pending. While so, the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation), Act, 1978, was
repealed, with effect from 16.06.1999, by the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Act,20 of 1999. According to Section 4 of the said act, all proceedings
with regard to the acquisition of excess vacant land would stand abated. Further, it has been
stated that the first respondent has issued a notice, in Form XII under Section 12(7) of the Act,
dated 20.09.2003, directing the petitioner to furnish the details with regard to the payment of
compensation. Therefore, it is evident from the said notice that no amount had been paid as
compensation till the date of the said notice. Further, it is evident from the orders of the
Government in their letter No. 70872/Na.Ni-u 03(1) / 94-4, dated 16.10.1998, that the
possession of the land had not been taken over from the land owner. It has been submitted
that the proceedings which were pending at the time of coming into force of the Repeal Act, 20
of 1999, will not be saved in accordance with Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act.
5.In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated as follows:-
"2. It is submitted that Thiru.V.Gurunathan represented by Thiru.V.Ramamurthy had
filed return under Section 7(1) of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
( Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for the land held by
him in S.No.192 of polichalur village on 29.09.1978. It was stated that the land is a self
acquired property of Thiru.V.Gurunathan, vide Doct.No.2652/17.09.1971. Notice under
Section 9(4) and Draft statement under Section 9(1) was issued in Rc.4707/80, dated
14.09.1981, for the land in S.No.192 measuring 2900 Sq.Mts. (72 cents) of
Polichalur village. This was served to the Power Agent Thiru.V.Ramamurthy on
18.09.1981, through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due. Meanwhile the Urban
Land Owner had applied for exemption under Section 21(1)(a) of the said Act. After
verifying the records the Government in their letter No. 1506/Revenue, dated
12.08.1988, rejected the exemption application of Thiru.V.Gurunathan and
Thiru.V.Ramamurthy since the petitioners were not running any Industry in the lands
S.No.191,192 of Polichalur. While the exemption application was under consideration
and the petitioners leased out the land by means of the unregistered lease deed. After
scrutinizing the records, order under Section 9(5) of the said Act was passed vide
proceedings RC.7794/88(B), dated 19.09.1989, declaring that an extent of 900 Sq.Mts. as
excess vide proceedings Rc.7794/88(B), dated 19.09.1989, after allowing 2000 Sq.Mts.
towards family entitlement. This was served by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due
on 29.09.1989. On receipt of section 9(5) order, the urban land owner filed an appeal
under Section 33 of the Act before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land
Reforms. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms in
proceedings J2/52948/89, dated 09.01.1990, had set aside the section 9(5) order and
instructed to pass fresh orders after allowing correct entitlement. This case was re-
examined and it was found that as regards family entitlement an extent of 2000
Sq.Mts. was computed wrongly as family eligibility considering that the family of the
urban land owner, consisted of himself, his wife, two minor children. On a detailed
verification, it was found that one of minor children was born only on 12.10.76 i.e.,after
coming into force of the Act i.e.3.8.76 and that the initial computation of family eligibility
as 2000 Sq.Mts. is incorrect and that the family as on 3.8.1976 consisted husband, wife and
one minor child only and hence the family entitlement is only 1500 Sq.Mts. and not 2000
Sq.Mts. Accordingly, fresh order under Section 9(5) was passed vide Assistant
Commissioner (Urban Land Tax) Tambaram proceedings Rc.B/7794/88, dated 12.7.90,
declaring the excess vacant land as 1400 Sq.Mts. after allowing 1500 Sq.Mts. towards
family entitlement. This order was served by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due.
Aggrieved by this order, the urban land owner again filed an appeal under Section 33 of the
said Act and it was rejected vide Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land
Reforms Procs.12/9654/91, dated 14.10.91. Then final statement under Section 10(1) of the
Act was issued on 23.03.1991 and served on 28.11.91. Notification under Section 11(1) of
the said Act was got published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.453/92 in
Par VI Section-1 at page 337, dated 25.03.92. Notification under Section 11(3) of the
Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part VI Section -1/1517/92 at
page 1073, dated 09.09.92. Final notice under Section 11(5) of the said Act requesting the
urban land owner to surrender possession of the excess vacant land within 30 days from
the date of receipt of notice was issued on 11.03.93 and it was served on 16.04.93. As the
Urban land owner has not chosen to surrender the possession, it was taken and handed
over to Firka Revenue Inspector, Alandur, on 30.06.93. After a long period the urban
land owner has now filed a writ petition W.P.31801/2003 in the High Court of Judicature,
Madras."
6. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied on the
following decisions :-
6.1. In M/s.Vijay Foundation (P) Ltd. rep.by its Director, R.Thiagarajan Vs The
Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai, reported in
2006-4-L.W,159, a learned Judge of this Court, while dealing with the action initiated by the
respondents under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, in view of
the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act (Act 20 of 1999), has held
that the respondents had initiated acquisition proceedings against the person who was not the
owner of the lands. As the mandatory conditions mentioned in Sections 7 to 12 of the Tamil
Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, were not followed by the respondent, the
alleged possession taken by the respondents was vitiated. Based on the proceedings initiated
against the wrong person, the lands of the petitioner cannot be acquired by the respondents.
Since the possession of the land is with the petitioner, ever since the date of purchase, and as the
the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, was repealed on
16.06.1999, it was not open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner."
 6.2. In Sosamma Thampy Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ULT)-cum-Competent Authority
(ULC) and others reported in (2006) 2 M.L.J. 664 , M/s.Anees Leathers Manufacturers
rep.by its proprietor Mr.Anees Ahamed Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu rep.by its
Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort
St.George, Chennai and others, reported in 2006-3-L.W.437, and Jayaseelan & Ratnaseelan Vs
The Government of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai and others, reported in 2006-3-L.W.440, this Court, while dealing with the effect of the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Repeal Act (Act 20 of 1999) on the land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation),
Act 1978, has held that all such proceedings initiated under the Act of 1978, would abate on the
coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, if
the possessionof the land had not been taken by the authorities concerned prior to the repeal,
and if due compensation had not been paid to the petitioners.
7.Based on the above decisions and on the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the petitioners as well as for the respondents and on a perusal of the records
available before this Court, it is clear that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the
respondents and challenged before this Court cannot be sustained in view of the subsequent
coming into force of the Repeal Act (Act 20 of 1999). From the facts of the present case, it is
seen that both the conditions have not been satisfied and therefore, on coming into force of
Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 20 of 1999,
from16.06.1999, all proceedings pending would abate.
8.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents could not
produce any record to show that actual possession of the land in question had been taken and
due compensation paid. From the records placed before this Court , it is seen that the lands in
question had been taken and handed over to Firka Revenue Inspector, Alandur, on 30.06.93.
According to the provisions of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999 and based on their interpretation, as
found in a series of decisions of this Court, it is clear that mere vesting of the land in the
Government is not sufficient. It should be shown that actual possession was taken over.
Taking of actual possession of the land and the payment of compensation thereafter, are the
crucial factors. If such taking over of M.JAICHANDREN.J possession
and payment of compensation is not shown to have been done, all proceedings pending with
regard to the lands in question, ought to be taken as abated on coming into the force of the Tamil
Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,20 of 1999. In such view of the matter,
the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
To
1. The Assistant Commissioner of
Urban Land Tax and Ceiling,
Tambaram Area, Sannadhi Street,
Adambakkam, Chennai - 600 088.