Lakshmi Ammal vs The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling and The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the

respondents.

It has been submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the land in S. No. 62/3-A, measuring an extent of 46 cents in Puthagaram Village. The

said land had been purchased by the petitioner from one Thulukkana Reddy in the year, 1962. Since the date of its purchase, the petitioner has

been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. While so, the competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Ambattur, had initiated acquisition

proceedings to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner without issuing the necessary notices contemplated, under the Tamil Nadu urban Land

(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act""). In fact, the land acquisition proceedings had been initiated and

proceeded with in the name of Thulukkana Reddy without taking note of the fact that the land had been purchased by the petitioner in the year

1962 itself.

It has been further stated that no notice had been issued to the petitioner and no order had been passed in the name of the petitioner. However,

the petitioner had come to know about the proceedings from the office of the respondent only on 11.12.2002. Meanwhile, the Act had been

repealed, on 16.6.1999, by the Tamil Nadu urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999, (hereinafter referred to as the Repeal Act).

The main contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner are that no notice had been served, either on the original owner

or on the petitioner. Even though the petitioner had been in possession and enjoyment of the land sought to be acquired by the respondents he had

not been given an opportunity to put forth his case, as provided under law. The respondents had initiated the proceedings under the Act without

considering the fact that the land in question had been purchased by the petitioner in the year, 1962. None of the statutory notices, as

contemplated under the various provisions of the Act, had been issued to the petitioner. Further, the respondents, had not taken physical

possession of the land in question, as it is still under the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and no compensation had been paid for

acquiring the said land.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations and averments made by the petitioner had been denied. It has been

stated that one Lakshmi Ammal was the owner of the lands in S. Nos. 59/4, 61/8, 61/9, 62/3A, 62/9, measuring an extent of 8150 sq.mtrs. in

Puthagaram Village, Ambattur Taluk. She has not filed the return, u/s 7(1) of the Act. Hence, a notice, u/s 7(2) of the Act had been issued in SR

75/88, Puthagaram Village, dated 16.5.1988. Since the land owner had refused to receive the notice, it has been served by affixture, on

21.5.1988. The urban land owner had not filed any objection. Hence, a notice, u/s 9(4), along with the statement, u/s 9(1) of the Act had been

issued, in SR. No. 120/88, dated 30.9.1988, calling for objections, if any, against the proposed acquisition of the excess vacant land of 7650

sq.mtrs., after allowing 500 sq.mtrs., as the petitioner''s entitlement area, as per Section 5(1)(i) of the Act. The notice had also been served by

affixture, on 16.11.1988. Thereafter, orders, u/s 9(5) of the Act, had been passed, in SR. No. 120/88, Puthagaram Village, dated 23.8.1991, to

acquire the excess vacant land of 7650 sq.mtrs. in S. Nos. 59/4, 61/8, 61/9(part), 62/3A and 62/9 of Puthagaram Village. Since the urban land

owner had refused to receive the order, it had been served by affixture. The final statement, u/s 10(1) of the Act had been issued, on 30.1.1992

and it was served by affixture. The notification, u/s 11(1) had been issued, on 10.6.1996, and it had been published in the Tamil Nadu Government

Gazette, on 10.7.1996 and the notification, u/s 11(3) of the Act, had been issued, on 31.10.1996 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government

Gazette, on 18.12.1996, vesting the excess vacant land with the Government, with effect from 31.12.1996.

It has been further stated that the notice, u/s 11(5) of the Act, had been issued, on 10.3.1997 and it was served by affixture. The possession of

the excess vacant land measuring an extent of 7650 sq.mts. in S. Nos. 59/4, 61/8, 61/9(part), 62/3A and 62/9 of Puthagaram Village had been

handed over to Redhills Firka Revenue Inspector, on 19.12.1997. Notice, u/s 12(7) of the Act, had been issued to the urban land owner in

Rc.84/98, dated 19.1.1998, and the order, u/s 12(6), had been issued, on 25.5.1998. An amount of Rs. 7650/-, which is the land value for the

excess vacant land acquired by the respondent, had been drawn and kept in the revenue deposit, on 6.2.2003. Contrary to the claims made by the

petitioner, all the necessary notices and orders were sent to the urban land owner. Since the urban land owner refused to receive the same, they

were served by affixture. The possession of the excess vacant land had been taken and it had been handed over to the appropriate authority

before the introduction of the Repeal Act. Even after the notices had been sent to the petitioner, objections had not been received from her, by the

respondents. Hence, necessary action had been initiated to acquire the land in question in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Since all the

proceedings had been initiated by the respondents in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner

are unsustainable. Thus, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:

7.1. In C. Ram Mohan and Ors. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu 2008 W L.R. 93, this Court had held that no valid evidence had been

produced by the respondents to show that the Draft Statement was served on the petitioners, as regards the vacant land held by them, in excess of

the ceiling limit. The plea of the respondents was that the Final Statement had been served on the petitioner by affixture, without sending it by

Registered Post, as contemplated u/s 10, read with Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Rules, 1978. Hence, it is not a

valid service. Even the procedures followed for the affixture was not satisfactory.

7.2. In V. Gurunathan Iyer, rep. by Power of Attorney, Agent G. Asokan Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax and Ceiling, The

Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms and The Government of Tamil Nadu, , this Court had held that mere vesting of the

land in the Government is not sufficient. Taking actual possession of the land and the payment of compensation to the land owner are crucial

factors and if they are not done prior to the coming into force of the Repeal Act of 1999, the proceedings initiated, under the Tamil Nadu Urban

Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, would abate.

7.3. In Vijay Foundation (P) Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, The Assistant Commissioner of Urban

Land Tax and Competent Authority of Urban Land Ceiling and The Tahsildar, , this Court had held that as follows:

...The Ceiling Act is not like Land Acquisition Proceedings where the authorities are required to serve notice upon the owner or occupier of the

land and on such person known or believed to be interested thereon to show cause within 30 days from the date of service of notice as to why the

lands should not be acquired, hence, based on the entries in the mutation proceedings, the opportunity be given to the owner or occupier or person

interested in the land be sufficient because the Notification specifies the intention of the Government to acquire the land for public purpose, which is

mandatory. So, the defence that mutation proceedings contain only name of Krishnan, hence, the proceedings were not initiated against the

petitioner is not a valid ground. Based on the proceedings initiated against the wrong person, the lands of the petitioner cannot be acquired by the

respondents.

Admittedly, the possession of the land is with the petitioner ever since the date of purchase continuously and this Court considering it at the time

of admission of this writ petition protected the same by issuing interim order, which is also in force till date. Moreover, the above said Act was also

repealed on 16.9.1999, hence, it is not open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner.

7.4. In Saraswathi and Anr. v. The Principal Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk Chennai and Anr. 2007 (4) CTC 714,

the relevant paragraphs 11 and 14 of the said decision of this Court read as follows:

Taking into consideration of the above said mandatory provisions of the Act, when we look into the case on hand, no valid evidence is

produced by the respondents to show that the draft statement was served on the petitioners, as regards vacant land held in excess of ceiling limit

by them. As per Section 9(4), the draft statement shall be served in such a manner as may be prescribed on the person concerned together with a

notice stating that any objection to the draft statement shall be preferred within 30 days of the service thereof. The said notice shall be served as

contemplated under Rule 8. Rule 8 contemplates that notice shall be served by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due to the last known

address and if not delivered a copy should be affixed in the said known residence, but in so far as both the mandatory provisions are concerned,

the respondents have not complied with the same. It is to be remembered that after the disposal of the objection filed u/s 9(5), shall make

necessary alterations in the draft statement in accordance with the order based on the objections and shall determine the vacant land held by the

persons concerned in excess of ceiling limit and cause a copy of the statement as so altered to be served in the manner referred to in Sub-section

(4) of Section 9 on the persons concerned. It is alleged by the respondents that final statement was also served on the petitioners father who died

in 1972 by affixture, which is contrary to Rule 8. Without sending it by Registered Post as contemplated u/s 10 read with Rule 8, it was allegedly

affixed, hence, it is not a valid service. Moreover, this Court also verified the affixture procedures followed by the respondents, which are also not

satisfactory.

In view of the facts that the respondents have not complied with the mandatory provisions of serving notice, final statement and delivery of

possession and failed to give opportunity to the petitioners to file their objections and no where in their order made any discussion about the

suitability of the lands for construction of houses as the said lands admittedly used only for agricultural purpose and even the alleged take over of

possession is not proved by any valid evidence and that the petitioners are in continuous possession of the lands in dispute all along even prior to

the Repeal Act and after the Repeal Act and the petitioners possession is protected by this Court during the pendency of this writ petition by

granting interim order, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer as sought for in this writ petition is to be granted.

In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records placed before this Court,

it is clear that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents had not been done in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The

necessary notices contemplated under the Act had not been served on the petitioner, who is said to be the land owner. Even though it has been

claimed by the respondents that the notices had been served on the petitioner by affixture, it could not be shown that they had followed Rule 8 of

the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Rules, 1978, while serving the relevant notices. The respondents had not shown sufficient

proof to sustain their claims that the petitioner had refused to receive the notices sent by them.

In Sosamma Thampy Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ULT)-cum-Competent Authority (ULC) and The Special Commissioner and

Commissioner of Land Reforms, Government of Tamilnadu, ; Anees Leathers Manufacturers, rep. by its proprietor, Mr. Anees Ahamed v. The

Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and Ors. 2006 (3) LW 437, and Jayaseelan &

Ratnaseelan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and Ors. 2006(3) LW 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 Act, has held that all such proceedings initiated under the Act of 1978, would abate on the coming into

force of the Repeal Act, if the possession of the land had not been taken by the authorities concerned prior to the repeal and if due compensation

has not been paid to the petitioners.

Even though it has been claimed by the respondents that the excess urban land in question had been handed over to the Revenue Inspector, on

19.12.1997, nothing has been shown to prove that actual physical possession of the land had been taken over by the respondents from the

petitioner. Further, no compensation had been paid to the petitioner for the land, said to have been acquired by the respondents. Therefore, in

view of the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999, the land acquisition proceedings initiated

by the respondents would stand abated. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. No. 39573 of 2003 is

closed. No costs.