Madras High Court
Mrs. Ayesha Haque, Rep., By Her Power ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By The ... on 18 December, 2002
ORDER K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.
1. While in W.P.No.29056 of 2002, the petitioner prays for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the third respondent dated 11.7.2002, in W.P.No.29057 of 2002, the petitioner seeks for the issue of a Writ of Declaration that the direction of the third respondent in respect of the petitioner's vacant land measuring about 8500 sq. meters as detailed in the writ petition had abated.
2. The petitioner contends that she is the owner of the land in dispute which was purchased under the sale deed dated 30.5.1970. In terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Regulations Act (hereinafter called as Act), (now repealed), the petitioner was entitled to retain an extent of 1626 sq. meters and the excess land was determined as 8490 sq. meters. She had applied for exemption for retaining the excess land and in G.O.Ms.No.862 Revenue Department dated 24.5.1990, exemption was granted to the petitioner subject to the condition that the land should be fully utilised for the specified industrial purposes within a period two years and that the land should not be transferred by way of sale etc. The petitioner was also entitled to raise a loan from any financial institution and she was not entitled to sell the land. In the event of not being able to comply with the purpose of exemption, the applicant should surrender the exempted land in lieu of compensation and that the applicant should intimate the Government as regards the progress of the work. In the event of the applicant violating the conditions, the exemption will be withdrawn.
3. According to the petitioner, she should have utilised the land for industrial purposes on or before 23.5.1992. However, as she had moved to the United States with her husband and was staying there, she became the non-resident Indian. Though she was trying her best to set up the industrial unit, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 31.10.1995, requiring her to show cause why action should not be pursued, since the exemption condition was not complied with. A reply was sent to the respondent stating the facts relating to the delay in implementing the condition of exemption. Apart from the fact that she had left the Country, reference was also made to a litigation which was pending as against the property in C.S.No.476 of 1986 and that a decree had also been passed against her and steps were being taken to set aside the exparte decree.
4. On 12.3.1997, a notice was issued under Section 9(4) of the Act was received by the petitioner on 12.3.1997. In the said notice, the excess vacant land was shown as 8490 sq. meters. A reply was sent by the petitioner. Finally an order was passed by the third respondent dated 25.9.1998 for acquiring 8490 sq. meters of land in the hands of the petitioner. As against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal on 7.10.1998 before the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005 and the said appeal is pending for disposal before the second respondent. In the said appeal, specific facts and grounds were stated thereunder, raising contentions that even in terms of the Act, portions of the alleged as excess land should be treated as outside the scope of the Ceiling Act.
5. In the meantime, the Act was repealed by Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 by Act 20 of 1999. According to the petitioner, in terms of the Repealing Act, the entire proceedings against the petitioner stood abated. Therefore, the petitioner by her letter dated 5.6.2000 informed the Director of Urban Land Ceiling, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005 that the proceedings are become abated. However, there is no response from the petitioner. However, without appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioner, the third respondent by proceedings dated 12.9.2001 had proceeded to determine that the vacant land held by the petitioner was in excess of the ceiling limit.
6. I have heard Mr.Habibullah Basha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
7. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act is no more in force and that the same had been repealed by Act 20 of 1999.
8. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act 20 of 1999 are 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 11, 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 21 or any action taken thereunder.
(2) Where-
(a) any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of section 11 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.
4. 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:
Provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to sections 12, 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.
9. A perusal of the above quoted sections 3 and 4 makes it clear that the repeal shall not affect only the cases where the vesting of the land has taken place in favour of the Government under Section 11 (3) and possession having been taken by the State Government.
10. In this case, though orders have been passed, declaring the land as excess, there are two facts which would militate against the continued applicability of the Ceiling Act. Firstly, the possession remains with the petitioner and therefore no complete vesting has taken place in favour of the State Government. Secondly, as against the order passed by the third respondent, an appeal has been filed before the Principal Commissioner, the second respondent herein, and therefore the proceedings declaring the excess land cannot be stated to have become final. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that Section 3 of Act 20 of 1999 cannot apply and in terms of Section 4, the proceedings have to be held as abated.
11. In Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust vs. State of U.P. , the Supreme Court after taking note of the provisions of the Repealing Act, held that as the appellant was in possession of the land and was also holding the land by virtue of an interim order of status-quo, the proceedings have to be held as having become abated.
In Smt. Angoori Devi vs. State of U.P. And Others (JT 2000 (Suppl.1)SC 295), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that when possession has not been taken over by the State Government, in terms of Section 4, the proceedings under the Ceiling Act have to be held as abated. In Allind Metal Fabricators Pvt. Limited vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu (2002 (2) CTC 716), R.JAYASIMHA BABU, J., held that as possession had not been taken subsequent to the initiation of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act, the proceedings have to be held as abated.
12. With the result, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and both the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMPs 47354 and 43755 of 2002 are closed.