IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date: 09.02.2010 Coram TTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.1176 of 2003 1. R.Murugavel(alias) Perumal Reddy 2. R.Lakshmi Ammal 3. R.Saraswathi Bai 4. Dilli Bai .. Petitioners vs. 1. The Secretary to Government Revenue Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Chennai-9 2. The Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling and Assistant Commissionenr (Urban Land Tax) Poonamallee Chennai-56 .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari as stated therein. For petitioners : Mr.R.Balakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.N.Senthilkumar,AGP O R D E R The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, in calling for the records of the second respondent Notifications which was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette in Part VI(1) 731/97 dated 9.7.97 at page 826 and part VI(1) 29/99 dated 6.1.1999 at page 27 and the order of second respondent in letter RC.No.1691/01/C dated 23.9.2002 and to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that their lands https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ comprised in S.No.118-6A of an extent 0.30.50 sq.mts in S.No.118-8 of an extent 0-32-5.0 sq.mts situated at Koladi Village was treated as excess of the ceiling limit of the first petitioner and the acquisition proceedings were initiated and Notification was issued under Sections 11(1) and 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 (T.N.Act 24 of 78) and subsequently, passed an award proceedings in RC.No.1691/01 dated 23.9.2002 and a letter was sent to the first petitioner and his mother by the second respondent in order to pay compensation of Rs.6,300/- as per letter R.C.No.691/2002 dated 28.11.2002 which was received by the first petitioner on 10.12.2002 and prior to the receipt of the two letters mentioned supra in regard to the compensation either the first petitioner or other petitioners had no knowledge about the proceedings commenced by the second respondent and since no notice was served either to the petitioners or their purchasers or the first petitioner and soon after receipt of the said notice made an enquiry with the second respondent with regard to the case lands and during the said enquiry, the petitioners came to know about the acquisition proceedings . 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners urges before this Court that the main notification published by the second respondent as per Sections 11(1) and 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 declaring the petitioners' lands of an extent 0-63-00 M2 comprised in S.Nos. 118/6A and 118/8 situate at Koladi Village as an excess vacant lands in part VI dated 9.7.97 at page 826 and part VI (1) 29/99 dated 6.1.99 at pages 27 in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette contains so many contradictions and the same is liable to be quashed and even before passing orders, under Section 9(5) of the Act, no notice was served to the petitioners and also that no opportunity was given to the petitioners before passing final statement or even after passing orders under Section 10 of the Act and no copy of the final statement was served to the petitioners or parties having interest in the lands and more over, S.No.118/8 of an extent 88 cents is still in agriculture land and the nature and character of the land so far has not changed and being cultivated only agricultural crops except for a particular short period and as on date, there was no conversion evidencing the revenue adangal extract and that being the position, the act of second respondent declaring the land as an urban land and initiated acquisition proceedings under Sections 11(1) and 11(3) of the Act was not valid in law and prior to the levying Urban Land Tax, the Principal Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai was pleased to set aside the Urban Land Tax orders of the second respondent vide letter RC.No.18103/99/C3 dated 13.8.2001 and remanded for fresh enquiry and disposal and prior to the acquisition of the case lands in S.No.118/8 measuring 80 cents or 0.32.50 M2 under Sections 11(1) and (3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act possession of the land was not with the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner and the same was held by the third parties who purchased plots pursuant to the alienation made in the year 1995-96 and therefore, the notifications made in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 9.7.97 at page 826 and dated 6.1.1999 at page 27 is unsustainable in the eye of law. 4. Continuing further, it is the stand of the petitioners that though the second respondent passed the impugned order under Section12(1) and (3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978, the possession of the case lands were not taken and therefore, Section 4 of Act 20 of 1999, the Repealing Act is applicable to the lands involved in the present writ petition and under such circumstances, pending proceedings before the second respondent were abated. 5. However, the stand of the respondents is that the first petitioner Murugavel and others was requested to file a statement as per Section 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land and Ceiling Act 1978 and a notice was sent to him in Ref.SR.644/92 dated 4.9.92 and it was served in person and he had not filed any objection notice under Section 9(4) of the Act with draft statement under Section 9 (1) of the Act was sent in Ref.SR.No.644/92 dated 31.8.95 for the proposed acquisition of excess vacant land measuring an extent of 6300 sq.mts. S.No.118/6 and 8 of Koladi Village which was duly served on 17.9.95 and that the urban land owner had not filed any objections after due enquiry and verification of the village accounts, order under Section9(5) of the Act was passed in Rc.804/95 dated 15.11.95 and a final statement as per Section 10(1) dated 29.12.95 was prepared and served by affixture and notification under Section 11(1) of the Act was prepared and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 9.7.97 and Notification under Section 1(8) of the Act was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 6.1.99 and that the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was also issued in RC.No.804/95 dated 16.2.99 and that the possession of the excess vacant land measuring 3050 sq.mts in S.No.118/6A and 3250 sq.mts in S.No.118/8 in Koladi Village was taken over on 8.6.99 and handed over to Revenue authorities on 28.6.99 and further a notice under Section 12(7) of the Act was issued to the land owner in 1691/2001(C) dated 9.5.2002 for the amount payable as per Section 12 of the Act etc and in short, the action of the respondents was in order and as per the provisions of the Act it is not mandatory to issue notice to the persons other than the land owner and also the lands were urban in nature and were inspected by the Deputy Tahsildar attached to the office of the second respondent and it was reported that the lands were kept vacant and after the receipt of the notice under Section 9(4) of the Act, the petitioners had availed an adequate opportunity to file their objections and since no objections were received from the land owners, orders were passed as per Section 6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (5) of the Act. 6. Besides the above, it is the plea of the respondents that the notice under Section 7(2) of the Act was served on the petitioners in person and a notice under Section 9(1) of the Act was also served on one Lakshmanan, the relative of the petitioners on 17.9.95 and Urban Land Act is different from Tamil Nadu Urban (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 and in short, the possession of excess vacant land was taken on 8.6.99 and as per Repeal Act, the principal Act was not fully scraped and that Section 3(1) of the Act provides protection for the lands that were vested with Government under Section 11(3) of the Act, possession of which has been taken over by State Government or any person duly authorised or by Competent Authority before the Repeal of the Act. 7. Also, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Urban (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules were not followed in the present case on hand and the ingredients of Rule 8 refers to the mandatory requirement and also the petitioners had not received any registered post except the compensation notice as per Section 7(2) of the Act. 8. Significantly, Rule 8 speaks of particulars contained in draft statement as regards the vacant lands and manner of service of the same. As per Rule 8(1) Every draft statement prepared under Sub Section (1) of Section 9 shall contain the particulars specific in Form III and as per Rule 2(a) the Draft statement together with the notice referred to in Sub Section (4) of Section 9 shall be served on (i) the Holder of the vacant lands(ii) all other persons, so far as may be known, who have, or are likely , to have any claim, or interest in, the ownership, or possession, or both, of the vacant lands, by sending the same by registered post addressed to the person concerned in case of the holder of the vacant lands, to his address as given in the statement filed in pursuance to Sub Section (1) of Section 7 and(iii) in the case of other persons, at their last known addresses etc., and the respondents have not adhered to the ingredients of Rule 8 and the same has been violated by them. 9. At this juncture, it is quite pertinent for this Court to point out that Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act 1999 enjoins as follows: "Abatement of legal proceedings: All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any Court, Tribunal, or any authority shall abate: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to Sections 2,13,14,15,15-B and 16 of the principal Act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to the land, 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'. 10. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision in Smt.Angoori Devi-v- State of U.P.(JT 2000 (Suppl.1) SC 295)as observed the following: "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. Further, under Section 4 of the Repealing Act all proceedings under the Act must be held to have abated. In that view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to proceed with this matter. These appeals stand disposed of accordingly.' 11.It is relevant to recall the observations made by this Court in its order dated 1.9.2009 in W.P.No.19315/2000 which runs as follows: "When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the Tamil Nadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978 was repealed by Act 20 of 1999 on 16.6.1999 and also produced a copy of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary. She also relied on the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Smt.Angoori Devi -v- State https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of U.P.and others (JT 2000 (Suppl.1)SC 295). Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records including that of the Government Gazette Extraordinary. A perusal of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary would make it clear that the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978 was repealed by Act 20 of 1999 even as early as on 16.6.1999. If that is so, it is not known as to how the tribunal passed the order on 17.8.2000 as against which the present writ petition has been filed." 12.Therefore, it is quite evident that in the light of the Honourable Supreme Court Judgment referred to supra and as per Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20/99, all proceedings must be held to have abated and therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners also stands abated and therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case and accordingly this writ petition is disposed of without costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sg To 1. The Secretary to Government Revenue Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Chennai-9 2. The Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling and Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Tax) Poonamallee, Chennai-56 +1cc to Mr.R.Balakrishnan,Advocate Sr 8229 SAI(CO) km/16.2. W.P.NO.1176/2003 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/