Mariammavarghese vs The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Madras-5, and two others

Nainar Sundaram, J.—Proceedings have been taken against the owners of the Urban land within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Urban

Land (Celling and Regulation) Act 24 of 1978, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner claims herself to be a holder of an agreement of

sale dated 29-6-1978 in respect of certain items. The proceedings under the Act have come past the stage of notification of acquisition. At that

stage, the petitioner wanted to exclude the lands, subject matter of the agreement of sale in her favour, from the said proceedings. This was

negatived by the second respondent on 17-3-1983. The petitioner took up the matter by way of an appeal under S.33 of the Act to the first

respondent and the first respondent by the order, impugned in the writ petition, has rejected the said appeal. The main reason for respondents 2

and 1 for discountenancing the case of the petitioner is that the transaction relied on by the petitioner could not be valid under S.6 of the Act, and it

is not possible to countenance any plea of hers for exclusion. When we look into the rigour of the language of S.6 of the Act, we find that the said

reason is perfectly in order and has got to be upheld. S.6 of the Act inhibits a person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit immediately

before the commencement of the Act, from transferring any such land or part thereof until he has furnished a statement under S.7 and a notification

regarding the excess vacant land held by him has been published under sub-S.(1) of S.11 and the section further says that any such transfer, made

in contravention of the same, shall be deemed to be null and void. The transaction admittedly comes within the mischief of S.6 of the Act.

Certainly, it would not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to put forth a plea for exclusion of the land subject matter of agreement of sale in her favour.

That would be giving sanction validating a transaction which is declared invalid by the Act. We do not propose to permit the petitioner to achieve

that result. The other complaint that there ought to have been a hearing of the petitioner before the first respondent dismissed the appeal is of no

force at all when we take note of the indisputable legal implications. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.