V.P.R. Varadharajan and Others vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

C.S. Karnan, J.—The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash letter No. Na.Ka.B/364/13, dated 27.09.2013, issued by the first respondent against the property, comprised in Survey No. 227/6E of Kottivakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, Kancheepuram District, measuring an extent of 46 Cents, since the Urban Land Ceiling Proceedings initiated by the first respondent are ceased to exist in view of the repeal of Act 15 of 1999, dated 16.06.1999 and to direct the first respondent to communicate the same to the second respondent to cancel the entries forwarded by him, by order dated 27.09.2013, relating to the said property.

The short facts of the case are as follows:

"According to the petitioners, the subject land comprised in Survey No. 227/6E of Kottivakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, Kanchepuram District, measuring an extent of 46 Cents, is a vacant land. Urban Land Ceiling proceedings were initiated against their mother Lakshmi Narayanan, whose real name is Lakshmi Rama Pandiaraj. The proceedings were initiated against a wrong person and a paper also sent on the property. Since there was no building or sheet, the respondents affixed it on the ground. There is not even a post on the property. Hence, the proceedings have to be quashed not only on facts, but also on law. The subject land has been purchased by one V.P. Rama Pandiara from S. Ganapathy Chettiar and others under a registered sale deed, dated 12.09.1962 and registered as document No. 2439 of 1962, in the S.R.O. Saidapet. The said V.P. Rama Pandiaraj died on 20.07.1972, leaving his wife Lakshmi Rama Pandiaraj and children as the only legal, heirs. Subsequently, the daughters released their right and interest over the said property in favour of their brothers under three separate release deeds, registered as document Nos. 2073, 2271 and 2272 of 1972, in the S.R.O. Mylapore. Their mother Lakshmi Rama Pandiaraj died on 20.12.1993."

Further, the petitioners have submitted that the Urban Land Ceiling Act came into force on 03.08.1976. The Urban Land Ceiling proceedings were initiated against one Lakshmi Narayanan instead of Lakshmi Rama Pandiaraj and all the letters were addressed to the site address and the proceedings were never served to the urban land owner. In fact, as per Section 3(f) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, a family having husband, wife and two children are entitled to 500 sq.meters of land each and in total all the four members are entitled to 2000 sq.meters. If that aspect is taken into consideration, the entire property is entitled to the family members. The respondents never took into consideration the family unit. They have taken only 500 sq.meters as if the petitioners'' mother is only one family member and none others are entitled for the property. Hence, a grave error has been committed by the first respondent while computing the family members.

The petitioners have further submitted that Late. V.P. Rama Pandiaraj was having wife and children, they are:

"i. V.P. Rama Pandiaraj (Deceased) - Husband

ii. Lakshmi Rama Pandiaraj - Wife

iii. V.P.R. Varadharajan - Son

iv. V.P.R. Raja - Son

v. V.P.R. Thillairaja - Son

vi. Sumathy Sivasubramanian - Daughter

vii. Savithiri Devadoss - Daughter

viii. Nirmala Pandian - Daughter"

Thus, the family consists of husband, wife, three sons and three daughters. But, as per the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the family is entitled to only four persons i.e., Husband, wife and two children, each person is entitled to 500 sq.meters. In that capacity, the entire family is entitled for 2000 sq.meters. The said V.P. Rama Pandiaraj died on 20.07.1972 leaving behind the above legal heirs. It is unfortunate to note that at any time and at any stage, proceedings have not been initiated against all the legal heirs of Late. V.P. Rama Pandiaraj. Hence, all the proceedings have been passed ex parte and it is also unfortunate to note that the first respondent has stated that notice has been served on the vacant land, which is unheard of in any rule of law and such service is void in law. Even now, it is only a vacant land. All the proceedings under Section 9 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act have been initiated only against Lakshmi Narayanan instead of Lakshmi Rama Pandiaraj, but the possession of the property was actually with the heirs of V.P. Rama Pandiaraj only. Patta also stands in the name of V.P. Rama Pandiaraj''s family members. Kist receipts also stand in the name of male members of the family.

The petitioners have further submitted that the proceedings were initiated under Section 9, even though in the document their address is explicitly available, the first respondent sought to serve only on the vacant land when the urban land owners are not residing in the land. Thus, it is evident to show that service itself was not effected on the urban land owners and throughout the first respondent have passed ex parte orders against the urban land owners. There are kist receipts in favour of urban land owners and also the subsequent purchasers. In this manner, the entire proceedings initiated by the first respondent against the urban land owners is prima facie ab initio and invalid. No notice has been served to the urban land owners. Subsequently, the urban land owners paid taxes for the property and possession was in the hands of urban land owners. Patta also was obtained by the urban land owners. Subsequently, they sold the property by subsequent sale. Even Patta was issued in favour of subsequent owners. But, the fact remains that the physical possession of the property was never taken by the first respondent.

The petitioners have further submitted that Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act indicates as follows:

"3. (1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect-

(a) the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3) of section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised 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 20 or any action taken thereunder, notwithstanding any judgment of any court to the contrary;

(c) any payment made to the State Government as a condition for granting exemption under sub-section (1) of section 20.

(2) Where-

(a) any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the principal Act but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the 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."

Further, the petitioners have submitted that as per Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act, on the date of repeal i.e. 16.06.1999, if the urban land was in physical possession of urban land owners and if physical possession has not been taken by the respondents, then the urban land owners are entitled to have the benefit of the Repeal Act and all the proceedings initiated by the urban land ceiling authorities are abated as there is no saving clause to retain the land by the first respondent. In the instant case, as on 16.06.1999, the entire property was in the possession of the urban land owners. Further, the proceedings initiated by the first respondent are only against Lakshmi Narayanan, wife of V.P. Rama Pandiaraj and hence this is prima facie ab initio and invalid and all the proceedings have to be abated. The first respondent has unlawfully informed the second respondent to make entry in the Sub-Registrar Office. The letter, dated 27.09.2014 states that they have taken possession prior to 16.06.1999. These are all letters created by the first respondent to suit their case. Hence, they have filed this writ petition seeking the relief as stated above.

The respondents have filed their counter affidavit stating that the petitioners have approached this Court very belatedly after a period of 16 years after possession was handed over to Revenue Department during 1999. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on latches of delay. One Lakshmi Narayanan was the owner of the land in Survey Nos. 237/6A and 6E of Kotttivakkam Village, measuring about 3450 sq.ft. Since the urban land owner did not file the return under Section 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (herein after, cased as "the Act"), notice under Section 7(2) of the Act was issued on 31.08.1995. It was served by affixing in the subject land in the presence of witnesses, as the urban land owner was not living in the Village. The lands were found to be urban in nature as per inspection report of Deputy Tahsildar on 26.09.1996. Since no reply was received from the urban land owner, notice under Section 9(4) along with statement under Section 9(1) was issued on 19.10.1996, for the proposed acquisition of the excess vacant land of 2950 sq.meters. It was also served by affixture in the case land in the presence of witnesses, as the urban land owner was not living in the Village. But, no objection was received from the urban land owner. Subsequently, the land was inspected by the Assistant Commissioner on 28.01.1997 and found to be vacant, urban with coconut trees, banana trees in the boundary portion of the land. The land in Survey Nos. 277/6A and 227/6E was already assessed to Urban Land Tax under Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, amended Act 1991, vide Urban Land Tax C. No. 30/1401 and C. No. 31/1401 respectively. Hence, orders under Section 9(5) of the Act were issued on 31.03.1997 declaring an extent 2950 sq.meters as excess land allowing 500 sq.meters towards entitlement in Survey No. 227/6A Part. It was also served by affixture by the Village Administrative Officer on 07.05.1997 as the urban land owner was not residing in the village and his whereabouts was not known.

The respondents have further submitted that final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 03.10.1993. Notification under section 11(1) of the Act was issued on 22.01.1998 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 22.04.1998. Notification under Section 11(3) of the Act was issued on 26.05.1998 and was published on 08.07.1998 in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was also served by the affixture and issued on 01.09.1998. The possession of the excess vacant land was handed over to the Revenue authorities on 15.03.1999. The details of the acquired lands were sent to Sub-registrar, Adyar, in Form XVII (Rule 11(5)) on 31.03.1999. After the announcement in the Assembly for revenue in the year 2012-2013, the Government in their G.O. Ms. No. 402, Revenue (Urban Land Ceiling 1(2) Department, dated 15.11.2012, have issued orders for fencing and protecting the Government lands acquired under this Act to use for public purpose. In continuation, the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Alandur, issued letters to Sub-Registrars in his jurisdiction about the details of lands acquired under the Act and requested not to register any transactions in the above lands in letter No. B/364/2013, dated 27.09.2013. Now, the legal heirs of urban land owner have filed this writ petition against the letter issued by the first respondent.

Further, the respondents have submitted that the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 came into effect from 03.08.1976 and the Act was repealed with effect from 16.06.1999 and the lands, which were acquired and possession handed over to Revenue Department before 16.06.1999, were saved under Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act and hence the contention of the petitioners that the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings are lapsed in view of the repeal of Urban Land Ceiling Act, is not correct and against law. Further, action was initiated against Lakshmi Narayanan to acquire the excess vacant land held by her. The lands were found urban and vacant when the Deputy Tahsildar conducted inspection on 26.09.1996. Further, the lands were assessed to urban land tax under the Tax Act in the name of Lakshmi Narayanan from 1991. Hence, action was initiated, notices and orders were issued and as the urban land owner was not living in the village and the address was not known, they were served by affixture by erecting a pole in the land in the presence of witnesses and Village Administrative Officer. Hence, the action taken is as per the provisions of the Act. The said release deed, demise of the petitioners'' mother were not brought to notice of the first respondent and hence they were not taken into consideration. Hence, the contentions of the petitioners are baseless and untenable.

The respondents have further submitted that the land was registered in Village/Taluk Accounts in the name of Lakshmi Narayanan on 03.08.1976 and hence notices were issued to her name and as the urban land owner was not living in the village and whereabouts, address was not known, notices and orders were served by affixture and as per Rule 8(2) (C) of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978. Hence, the action is as per the provisions of the Act. Further, the details of the family members were not furnished by the urban land owner. Hence, the contentions of the petitioners are baseless and untenable. Notification under Section 11(1) of the Acr was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 22.04.1998 for the persons interested in the land. But, no representation or objections were received from any persons. Then, notification under Section 11(3) of the Act was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 08.07.1998 and the land was vested with the Government with effect from 01.07.1998 free from all encumbrances. Then, after issuing notice under Section 11(5) of the Act, the possession of the excess vacant land was handed over to Revenue authorities on 15.03.1999 by signing in the land delivery receipt by the officials concerned, which is as per the provisions of the Act and necessary charges were made in Village/Taluk Accounts in the name of Government of Tamil Nadu vide 8A/981/1408. Thus, the whole acquisition proceedings were completed well before repeal of the Act i.e., before 16.06.1999 and saved under Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act. Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act reads as follows:

"3. (1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect-(a) the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3) of section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority."

The petitioners have wrongly quoted Section 3(2) of the Act, which is not applicable to present case.

Further, the respondents have submitted that the possession of the vacant land can be indicated only through records and the lands are registered only in the name of Government of Tamil Nadu from 15.03.1999 and hence the contentions of the petitioners cannot be acceptable. Both in the Principal Act and Repeal Act, there is no mention of the word ''Physical Possession'' and the acts speaks about ''Possession'' only, which is nothing but the entries in the Village/Taluk Accounts. Further, the alleged sale of the lands are not valid under Section 6 of the Act. Hence, they were not taken into consideration.

The respondents have further submitted that after completion of the acquisition proceedings, the details of the lands acquired were sent in Form-XVII (Rule 11(5)) to Sub-Registrar, Adyar, on 31.03.1999. After the announcement in the Assembly for revenue in the year 2012-2013, the Government passed G.O. Ms. No. 402, dated 15.11.2012, for fencing and protecting the Government lands acquired under this Act to use it for public purpose. In continuation, the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Alandur`, issued letters to Sub-Registrars in his jurisdiction, about the details of lands acquired under the Act and requested not to register any transaction in the above lands vide letter, dated 27.09.2013. Hence, the contentions of the petitioners are not correct and they are false.

Further, the respondents have submitted that after following the procedure as contemplated in the Act, the possession of the excess vacant land was handed over to Revenue Authorities on 15.03.1999. Then necessary changes were made in the Village/Taluk accounts. There is no reference in the provisions of the Act about ''Physical Possession''. In the Act, ''Possession'' alone was referred. Moreover, possession of all poramboke lands belonging to Government is held by making necessary entries in the records of the Government and not protected by any fencing nor can it be and none can claim right over it. Likewise, the possession of the acquired lands is also by making necessary entries in Village and Taluk Accounts. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that physical possession was not taken over is not correct and baseless. If at all the petitioners were in possession of the land, then they would have known about the acquisition and filed objections or appeal. In the absence of the same, the contentions of the petitioners are not correct and baseless especially when they are not supported by any documentary evidences. The contention that the respondents have no locus standi to issue notice after Repeal Act cannot be accepted. After completion of acquisition proceedings, the details of the acquired land were sent to the respective Sub-Registrar Office. Hence, the contentions of the petitioners are false and untenable and cannot be accepted. The concerned Sub-Registrar was addressed immediately after completion of acquisition in each case from the Government, first respondent addressed the second respondent intimating the details of acquired lands. Hence, the action taken by the first respondent is as per law and it cannot be found fault with. For all the reasons, the respondents have prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the first respondent had initiated Urban Land Ceiling Proceedings against the petitioners, which have lapsed as per Repeal Act 20 of 1999. Further, the said proceedings were initiated against one Lakshmi Narayan, actually the owner of the property is Lakshmi Rama Pandiaraj, who is the mother of the petitioners, and as such the entire acquisition proceedings went to the wrong person. The father of the petitioners had purchased the property during 1962 under a registered sale deed. Therefore, the subject land has been succeeded by the petitioners after expiry of their parents. The first respondent sent all communications to Lakshmi Narayanan and therefore the said acquisition proceedings is not maintainable under law.

Further, the learned counsel has submitted that the subject land is covered to a family consisting of four members. The first respondent had not initiated the said acquisition proceedings against the legal heirs of the original owner. Furthermore, the service itself has not been effected to the land owner. Subsequently, the first respondent had passed ex parte orders, since the petitioners and other co-owners have continuously remitted the mandatory land taxes to the statutory authorities. Further, the petitioners are still in physical possession of the subject land. The first respondent had sent a notice to the second respondent stating that they have taken physical possession, which is incorrect since the petitioner is in possession. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed this Court to quash the proceedings, dated 27.09.2013, issued by the first respondent.

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that the subject land had been acquired after observing necessary legal formalities under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The possession has not been taken by the first respondent and handed over to the Revenue Authorities. The petitioners have not received the acquisition notice and hence the notice had been affixed in the subject land in the presence of witnesses. Further, the first respondent had declared an extent of 2950 sq.meters of land as excess land after allowing 500 sq.meters to the land owner and the same was published in the Government Gazette. The acquired land had been handed over to the revenue authorities on 15.03.1999 and to that effect a communication had also been sent to the second respondent on 31.03.1999 to avoid making any encumbrance over the property. As such, the writ petition is not maintainable since it has not been filed as per the original cause of action. The same was announced by the Hon''ble Minister during 2012 on the Assembly floor. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is fit to be proceeded with further.

Further, the learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioners were not living in the Village and hence a publication was given in the Government Gazette. As such, the acquisition notice was effected. Hence, the learned Additional Government Pleader prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition since the subject land has been taken by the first respondent, who inturn handed over the same to the Revenue Authorities on 15.03.1999, besides all the records mutated in the name of Government.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsel on either side and on perusing the typed set of papers, this Court is of the view that the first respondent had acquired the said land during 1997, who in turn handed over the same on 15.03.1999, to the Revenue Authorities. A communication also sent to the second respondent on 31.03.1999. This fact revealed by the respondents by way of filing counter affidavit on the basis of the records maintained by the Government Hence, the impugned order, dated 27.09.2013, is only a subsequent communication and the same cannot be considered as an original cause of action. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.