Supreme Court - Daily Orders
T.V. Antony vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 November, 2019
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.8477-8488 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.19004-19005/2018)
T.V. ANTONY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in M.P. No.1 of 2014 in W.A. SR No.36084 of 2014 and dated 15.02.2018 in Writ Appeal No.1552 of 2017.
Land measuring 1 acre and 2 cents in Survey No.43/2B-1A of Pulikoradu village, Tambaram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu was purchased by one Heera vide document registered on 17.01.1962. Said Heera thereafter entered into an agreement to sell the land in favour of one Gandhi Real Estate Agents. As there was breach of the agreement, O.S. No.2007 of 1976 was filed before Signature Not Verified the 6th Assistant City Civil Court, Madras. Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2019.11.15 10:17:22 IST Reason: 2 During the pendency of the proceedings, the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into operation. In accordance with the obligation cast upon the holder of the land, said Heera filed returns in Form 1 under Section 7(1) of the Act.
It may be mentioned that while the proceedings were pending, by transaction dated 13.12.1980, the property was transferred by said Heera in favour of the present appellant. The factum was communicated to the authorities by the appellant and thereafter a Patta was also granted in favour of the appellant by the Revenue Authorities on or about 25.03.1981. According to the appellant, right from the day of transaction, the appellant has been in quiet and peaceful possession of the land in question. During the course of time, the appellant put up construction upon the land and installed a Stone Crushing Unit.
The proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act finally culminated in an order under Section 9(5) of the Act declaring that said Heera had violated the provisions of the principal Act; had given a false declaration; the sale of property effected by said Heera was null and void; and that, an extent of 3900 Sqr. Mtr. of land out of that property was “excess vacant land”.
3
The notification under Section 11(1) of the Act was published in Tamil Nadu Gazette on 25.11.1983. Final Notification under Section 11(3) of the Act was also published on 15.09.1984 declaring that w.e.f. 08.10.1984, the excess vacant land was deemed to have been acquired.
Thereafter, notices were issued and sent to the vendor of the appellant under Section 11(5) of the Act directing said Heera to surrender possession of the property in question. However, no notice was served upon the appellant. In reply to the notice under Section 12(7) issued on 09.06.1987, the vendor of the appellant intimated in reply dated 30.06.1987 that she had already sold her interest in favour of the appellant. However, once again a notice was issued by the competent authority directing the vendor of the appellant to appear in person.
At that juncture, Writ Petition No.4374 of 1989 was filed by the appellant in the High Court of Judicature at Madras praying inter alia that the respondent be restrained from acquiring the land and dispossessing the appellant from the land in question without taking proceedings under the provisions of the Act. The matter was gone into by a Single Judge of the High Court and by order dated 24.04.1998. The matter was considered as under:
4
“9. It is true that the petitioner has purchased the said lands only on 13.12.1980 under a registered sale deed from one Selvi A. Heera. He also obtained necessary patta in his favour on 25.03.1981. The Revenue Authorities did not raise any objection and as a matter of fact, transferred the Patta in favour of the petitioner-purchaser in accordance with law. As per definition in Sec.3(o) any land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, cannot come within the purview of ‘Urban Land’. Explanation (B) to clause (o) of Section 3 of the Act runs as follows:— “3(o)(B):- Land shall not be deemed to be used mainly for the purpose of agriculture, if such land is not entered in the revenue or land records before the commencement of this Act as for the purpose of agriculture.” In this case, it is the definite case of the petitioner that the lands purchased by him from the said A. Heera are agricultural lands, hence the provisions of the Act are not applicable to him. No doubt, as per Section 6 of the Act, if any transfer is effected by the person holding excess vacant urban land, in contravention of the said section such transfer is deemed to be null and void. Taking note of section 6, inspite of the fact that the vendor of the petitioner has informed the third respondent regarding her sale in favour of the petitioner on 13.12.80 under a registered instrument, the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity,. It is true that any transaction in contravention of Section 6 shall be deemed to be null and void.
However, before taking possession of the excess land, the concerned Authority has to prepare a draft statement with regard to the vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit.
10. In the light of the scheme of the Act as preferred above, even if there is any contravention of section 6, the bonafide purchasers have some protections as per the provisions of Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act. In other words, even if there is any contravention of Section 6, a duty is cast on the competent authority to issue notice to all the persons concerned or all the claimants of the persons 5 interested in such excess land and consider the same in accordance with law. No doubt, it is true that in para 5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the third respondent has informed the purchaser that the sale having been done in violation of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 will be treated as null and void. The petitioner was not given proper and adequate opportunity to put forth his claim in consideration of competent authority with regard to (a) nature of the lands, (b) construction of an industry in terms of Schedule III of the Act.
… Had the third respondent issued notice at the appropriate time as per the provisions of the Act referred to above and heard the petitioner in person, he could have availed the opportunity of putting forth his claim. It is needless to mention that the proper course for the Authority would have been either to accept his claim if it was in order or to reject the same if he has no valid grounds.
12. With regard to the possession of the land in dispute, it is seen that even as early as on 28.3.1989 this court had granted injunction against the respondents and thereafter the injunction was made absolute after hearing both sides on 9.9.93, hence the injunction is still in force.
13. In the light of what is stated above, I am in agreement with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, accordingly the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
14. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to proceed further under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 only after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his claim. No costs.” Two points emerge from the aforesaid order:
Firstly, a clear finding was rendered with regard to the possession of the land and in para 12 it was observed that the order of injunction passed in favour of the appellant was in 6 force when the matter was disposed of. Secondly, while allowing the Writ Petition, a positive direction was passed directing the respondents to proceed further under the provisions of the Ceiling Law only after giving adequate opportunity to the appellant to put forth his case.
It is accepted that this order was never challenged. No recall or review was sought nor any appeal was preferred against said order and thus the order attained finality.
While the matter stood at that level, the provisions of the Principal Act were repealed by Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act No.20 of 1999), which came into force from 16.06.1999. Thus, as on the date when Repeal Act came into force, the situation that obtained was one that had been determined by the Single Judge of the High Court.
The notices were thereafter sought to be issued to the appellant by the authorities concerned to effectuate the proceedings which had already been initiated under the provisions of law which now stood repealed. The challenges raised in that behalf having been unsuccessful, the appellant is before this Court.
We have heard learned counsel for both sides. Learned Counsel for the State tried to invite our attention to the documents on record which in his 7 submission would indicate that not only the proceedings were completed under the provisions of the Ceiling Law but the compensation receipt was also executed by the erstwhile owner who was recorded as holder of the land.
All these documents are of the year 1989 and it was definitely possible for the State to project a view before the Single Judge of the High Court that the case made out by the present appellant did not deserve any consideration. However, after assessing the entirety of the matter, the Single Judge had found that the appellant ought to have been issued notice and proceedings could be taken up only after appropriate notice was issued to him.
In the circumstances, whatever had been undertaken and completed earlier would not be of any consequence as regards the claim of the appellant. It was open to the State to challenge the view taken by the Single Judge and to have the matter agitated before the appropriate forum. Having accepted the dictum of the learned Single Judge, the State cannot now agitate to the contrary.
We have, therefore, no hesitation in allowing these appeals. The order passed by the authorities in question which were under challenge before the High Court are quashed and the impugned order is set-aside.8
The appeals are allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.
.................................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] .................................J. [VINEET SARAN] NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 08, 2019
9
ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.7 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.19004-19005/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-11-2017 in MP No.1/2014, 15-02-2018 in WA No.1552/2017 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Madras) T.V. ANTONY Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R.; and, IA No.99278/2018 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 08-11-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Adv.
Ms. Suriti Chowdhary, Adv.
Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Jayanth Muthuraj, Sr. Adv. (AAG) Ms. A. Jaswanthi, Adv.
Mr. K. V. Vijayakumar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed, in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MUKESH NASA) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed Order is placed on the File)