Madras High Court
Appellants vs Evp Estates And Properties Development ... on 1 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
W.A.No.1531 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 15.07.2025
Pronounced on 01.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.No.1531 of 2025
and C.M.P.No.15808 of 2025
1. The Commissioner,
Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax Department,
Ezhilagam, Chennai.
2. The Distrit Collector,
Collectorate,
Kancheepuram District – 631 501.
3. The Special Tahsildar,
(Land Acquisition)
Chennai Airport Expansion Scheme,
Patunool Chathiram,
Sriperumpudur,
Kancheepuram District.
4. The Tahsildar,
Sriperumpudur.
5. The Assistant Commissioner,
Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax
Kundrattur Region, Kancheepuram District,
Chennai – 600 029.
1/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm )
W.A.No.1531 of 2025
... Appellants
Versus
1. EVP Estates and Properties Development Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director E.V.Perumalsamy Reddy,
No.23, Sir Thiyagaraya Road,
Pondy Bazaar, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600 017.
2. Mrs.P.S.Rajeshwari
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying
to set aside the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by learned single Judge in
W.P.No.9206 of 2017.
For appellant(s): Mr.R.Ramanlaal, AAG
asst.by Mr.Vadivel
Deenadayalan,AGP
For Respondent(s): Mr. Sathis Parasaran, l
Sr.Counsel for Mr.M.Anandaraj
JUDGMENT
(By J.Nisha Banu,J.) This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by learned single Judge in W.P.No.9206 of 2017.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the present 2/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 Writ Appeal, can be stated as under:
2.1 The land measuring an extent of 4.62 acres in Survey No.379/1 of Manambakkam village was subjected to land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) for the purpose of Chennai Airport Expansion Scheme under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. The 1st respondent herein, claiming to be the owner of the said land, had expected compensation to be awarded in his favour, however, since no compensation was granted, he moved a writ petition in W.P.No.13544/2014 praying for compensation of the land which was acquired. This Court, vide order dated 18.12.2014, directed the District Collector, Kancheepuram to consider the representation dated 10.06.2013 made by the 1st respondent.
2.2 Pursuant to the same, the District Collector, Kancheepuram vide order in Proc. No.A/15076/2007 dated 04.04.2015, declined to grant the compensation, stating that the subject land has already been acquired under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (in short, 'the Act'). Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of ULC & ULT, who in turn, 3/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 vide order, dated 05.05.2016, rejected the appeal on the ground that the subject land was acquired under Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1978 and also the possession of land was taken over by the Revenue authorities on 21.06.1996, it was saved as the land belonging to the Government under Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act 20/1999.
3. Challenging this order, dated 05.05.2016, the 1st respondent filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.9206 of 2017. This Court, vide order dated 22.12.2022, allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 05.05.2016.
4. Questioning the order passed by the learned single Judge, the present Appeal has been preferred by the State Government.
5. Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Addl.Advocate General appearing for the appellants, at the out set, would vehemently contend that in fact, in respect of the the subject lands, proceedings were initiated under the ULC Act by issuing a notice under Section 9(4) along with draft statement under Section 4/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 9(1) to the original land owner, calling for the objections and despite serving of notice, the original owner, viz., M/s.Sri Hari Brick Works had not filed any objections, which prompted the authority to pass order under Section 9(5) of the Act, determining an extent of 18200 sq.mt. as excess land out of total extent of 18700 sq.mt. and this order was also served on the land owner on 09.03.1991, against which, the land owner preferred an appeal before the Special Commissioner/Commissioner of Land Reforms, who in turn, vide order dated 07.09.1991, rejected the appeal. Thereafter, Notification under Section 11(3) of the Act was issued and published in Government Gazette dated 08.03.1995, vesting the subject land with the Government free from all encumbrance and also a final notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was issued, requesting the land owner to surrender and deliver the possession of the excess vacant land and it was served on 18.07.1995.
5.1 He would further submit that on 12.07.1996, necessary changes were carried in the Village and Taluk Revenue records to the effect that the subject land as 'Government ULC land'. However, as the land owner failed 5/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 to come forward to surrender the excess land, possession of the land was taken over by the Revenue authority, viz., Revenue Inspector, Mangadu Firka on 21.06.1996. The learned Addl.Advocate General would point out that the land was taken over prior to the commencement of the Urban Ceiling & Regulation Repeal Act, 1999.
5.2 He would further submit that on 14.8.1996, notice under Section 12(7) was issued to the land owner, calling for objections if any for fixation of the acquired excess vacant land and vide order, dated 05.09.1997, total amount of Rs.1820/- was fixed for the acquired excess vacant land, however, as the land owner refused to receive the same, it was kept in the revenue deposit vide challan No.1132 dated 13.01.1998 at Sub Treasury, Poonamallee.
5.3 Therefore, the learned Addl.Advocate General would contend that after following due procedure contemplated under ULC Act, the subject land was validly taken over and vested with the Government prior to the Repeal Act and once ULC proceedings had become final, the 1 st 6/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 respondent/writ petitioner, who is the subsequent purchaser, having purchased the subject property in the year 2005, cannot be permitted to agitate or raise issue/objection that the physical possession was not taken over as per the procedures contemplated under the ULC Act.
5.4 He would point out that it is only the original erstwhile owner, who had personal knowledge about ULC proceedings, can speak about the manner in which the land was taken over, the respondent/writ petitioner who is the subsequent purchaser, cannot speak as he is not aware of the facts and circumstances in which, the physical possession of the subject land was taken over by the revenue authority, that too after lapse of 20 years and the acquisition proceedings attained its finality.
5.5 He would also point out that in fact, the respondent/writ petitioner has not challenged the ULC proceedings under which the subject land was taken over and vested with the Government despite he was aware of the same as in the proceedings, dated 05.05.2016 impugned in the Writ Petition, the first appellant herein has specifically informed to the petitioner 7/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 that the subject land was acquired under ULC Act and the possession was taken over by the Revenue authorities on 21.06.1996. Even before the learned single Judge, relevant file pertaining to the ULC proceedings in respect of subject land has been produced which clearly demonstrate the fact that the possession of the land has been taken over on 21.06.1996 itself and the land delivery receipt, which has been handed over by the Deputy Tahsildar, ULT Office and taken over by the Revenue Inspector, Mangadu Firka, Sriperumbudur and by virtue of this, it is clear that the possession has been taken over under Section 11(5) of the Act. However, the learned Judge, without adverting to these facts, erroneously held that the procedure contemplated under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) was not followed in respect of taking over the possession and just by relying upon earlier order of this Court which is not applicable to the case on hand, set aside the impugned proceedings, which cannot be sustained. He pointed out that the learned single Judge has proceeded as if the original owner was one Krishnaveni Ammal and no notice was served on her, but as per the records, the original owner at the time of ULC proceedings was M/s.Sri Hari Brick Works and therefore, serving notice on Krishnaveni Ammal or on her legal heirs, does 8/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 not arise at all.
5.6 The learned Addl.Government Pleader would also contend that in fact, the original land owner filed an application, seeking exemption under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act to retain the subject excess land, but the Government vide G.O.(Ms.) No.1852 Revenue Department dated 25.10.1989, rejected the claim. Therefore, once ULC proceedings initiated and proceeded against the original owner, which reached finality by taking over the possession of the subject land and by virtue of Section 32(a) of the Repealing Act, the land vests with the Government, and therefore, the same cannot be reopened or probed into at the instance of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, who is a subsequent purchaser, that too after a lapse of 20 years and whether the possession was taken voluntarily or by using force under Section 11(6) cannot be agitated by him.
6. In support of his contentions, the learned Addl.Advocate General relied upon the following decisions, viz.,
i) “State of Assam versus Bhaskar Jyothi Sarma and others” reported in (2015) 5 SCC 321, wherein, it has been held as under:9/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 “15. The question whether actual physical possession was seriously disputed question of fact which is not amenable to a satisfactory determination by the High Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution no matter the High Court may in its discretion in certain situations upon such determination. Remand to the High Court to have a finding on the question of dispossession, therefore, does not appear to us to viable solution".
ii) In Judgment dated 15.03.2012 in W.A. No. 2275 of 2011, a Division Bench of this Court, regarding the possession and non application of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, has observed in para 18 as follows:
"18. All these circumstances would go to show that due to abnormal rise in price of the land nowadays not to go only in the vicinity of Chennai but throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, the appellants have come forward to file the writ petition assailing the land ceiling proceedings initiated on 18.12.1992 and ended on 04.06.1999 by mala fide intention and unclean hands to take a chance to get a favorable order from this court.
"19. Both the question of facts and the position of law the writ petition filed by the appellants cannot be 10/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 maintained.... A perusal of the records give a clear indication that the competent authority has conducted proceedings strictly in accordance with provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The possession of the property was also taken and it was handed over to the Revenue Department as early as on 14.06.1999. Therefore, as on the date on which the Repeal Act came into force, there were no proceedings pending before the statutory authorities so as to grant the relief prayed for by the appellants/writ petitioners. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed with costs."
iii) In another Judgment dated 09.09.2009 in the Writ Appeal No. 861 of 2006, this Court has observed in para 10 as under:
"10. It is true that sometimes, the records do not reveal whether the officers went to the site in question before finalizing the proceedings. Here we find that the Field Survey Officer concerned had gone to the site earmarked the land and the exact location of the excess land. In addition, the adjacent plot Nos. 15 and 6 are in the possession of the appellants, according to them, where they are running an industry, therefore their statement that they came to know about the proceedings 11/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 all of a sudden only in 2005 is not true. The records show that possession has been taken. In these circumstances we are unable to see how we can interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants are different on facts as we have explained above."
iv) In “Tmt.Sulochana Chandrakant Galanda Vs Pune Municipal Transport and others”, in Civil Appeal No. 492 of 2007, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 34 as under:
"34. the aforesaid factual position makes it clear that the appellant is not entitled for any relief whatsoever as per the law, as it exists today. The land once vested in the State cannot be divested. Once the land is vested in the State it has a right to change the user. The appellant cannot be heard raising grievance on either of these issues.
35. Thus, in view of the above, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
v) In Civil Appeal No.2749/2023 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) 12/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 No.7510/2023, etc., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“12. The issue as to what is meant by "possession of the land by the State after its acquisition" has also been considered Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority's case (supra). It is opined therein that after the acquisition of land and passing of award, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. The vesting of land with the State is with possession. Any person retaining the possession thereafter has to be treated trespasser. When large chunk of land is acquired, the State is not supposed to put some person or police force to retain the possession and start cultivating on the land till it is utilized. The Government is also not supposed to start residing or physically occupying the same once process of the acquisition is complete. If after the process of acquisition is complete and land vest in the State free from all encumbrances with possession, any person retaining the land or any re- entry made by any person is nothing else but trespass on the State land.”
7. With these contentions, the learned Addl.Advocate General would urge this Court to set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge.13/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025
8. On the other hand, Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior counsel for Mr.M.Anandaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that absolutely no interference is required in respect of the order of the learned single Judge since it has been categorically held that it is the case of the appellants that they had taken possession not under Section 11(6), but only under Section 11(5) of the Act and when that be so, the so- called land delivery receipt wherein, Deputy Tahsildar ULT signed as handing over authority and Revenue Inspector of the concerned Firka signed as taken over authority, cannot be taken into account as a token of taking over the possession of the land in question. He would point out that admittedly, the delivery receipt dated 21.06.1996 was not signed by the land owner and hence a paper delivery to which, land owner is not privy to, would not constitute delivery of physical possession by the owner and that the appellants have failed to produce any evidence of issuing notice under Section 11(6) of the ULC Act. He would contend that if at all the appellants claim that they had taken over possession, then they ought to have resorted to the procedure under Section 11(6) of the Act, which was 14/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 not done and as such, when the manner and procedure in which possession was sought to be recorded or taken over, is not in accordance with law, then the Government is not deemed to be in possession of the subject land. In this regard, the learned Senior counsel relied upon a judgment of a Division of the this Court, reported in 2015 (5) CTC 823 (A.N.Vishalakshi versus Special Commissioner) wherein, it has been held in para 14 and 15 as under:
"14. .... In the preceding paragraphs, we have seen that the land delivery receipt has been executed between Urban Land Ceiling Department and the Revenue Department and the land owner had not surrendered possession pursuant to the order under Section 11 (5) of the State Act. Therefore, if the Respondents claim they have taken over possession, then they should have resorted to the procedure under Section 11 (6) of the Act which has not been done and the manner in which the possession is sought to be recorded or taken over, is not in accordance with law and the Government are not deemed to be in possession of the land in Question.
15. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation 15/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 to hold that the possession said to have been taken over by the Revenue Department, pursuant to the Land Delivery Receipt cannot be construed as possession taken in accordance with law and therefore, cannot confer any right on the Department/Government and the Landowners are held to be continued to possession and consequently, the proceedings initiated under the Urban Land Ceiling Act stand abated in the light of the coming into force of the Repealing Act, Act 20 of 1999.”
9. He would further contend that Notification under Section 11(3) of the Act was issued on 08.02.1985 and notice under Section 11(5) was purportedly issued on 19.06.1995 and even according to the appellants, the land owner did not come forward to surrender the excess vacant land, but the appellants claimed that possession was taken on 21.06.1996 and they relied upon the land delivery receipt as proof of taking over possession, but strangely, no notice was issued under Section 11(6) of the Act which is mandatory under law to be issued before resorting to taking forcible possession. In this regard, the learned Senior counsel relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 16/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 447 (A.P.Electrical Equipment Corporation versus Tahsildar), wherein, it has been held in para 39 and 40 as under:
“"39. The mere vesting of land under subsection (3) of section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.03.1999. State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under subsection (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the landowner or holder can claim the benefit of section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999. In the case on hand, the State Government has in our considered view not been able to establish any of those situations and hence the learned single judge was right in holding that the Appellant herein is entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999.
“40. The effect of Repeal Act, 1999 is further clear. If the landowner remains in physical possession, then irrespective of his land being declared surplus and/or entry being made in favour of the state in revenue 17/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 records, he will not be divested of his rights. Even if compensation is received, that also will not dis-entitle him to claim the benefit if compensation is refunded, provided he is in actual physical possession. Payment of compensation has no co-relation with the taking of actual physical possession as with the vesting land compensation becomes payable which can be paid without taking actual physical possession."
10. He would further contend that all along from the date of purchase of the subject land, the respondents have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and even prior to purchase, their vendor was in possession and that the respondents after purchase of the property, developed it into a residential house site and the District Collector, Kancheepuram also issued a statutory notice in Form-E, dated 16.06.28, calling upon the petitioner to surrender the possession of the subject land for the purpose of Chennai Airport Expansion Scheme and also the Land Acquisitioning Officer (Special Tahsildar) issued Notification dated 06.08.2008, fixing the market rate of the subject land and called upon the respondent to give consent for the said value determined by the authority. Therefore, the learned Senior 18/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 counsel would point out that these facts would demonstrate that the appellants have not taken physical possession of the subject land either from the erstwhile owner or from the respondents herein. When such being the situation, by virtue of Repeal Act, 1999, if land owner remains in physical possession, then irrespective of his land being declared surplus and/or entry being made in favour of the State in revenue records, he will not divested of his rights. If the Landowners are held to be continued to possession and consequently, the proceedings initiated under the Urban Land Ceiling Act stand abated in the light of the coming into force of the Repealing Act, 1999.
11. The learned Senior counsel would further contend that the appellants have not taken over the possession of the subject land either by virtue of Section 11(5) of the Act as admittedly, even according to the appellants, the land owner had not come forward to surrender the surplus land, which shows that the land owner had not given consent voluntarily towards taking possession of the subject land; or by issuing notice invoking Section 11(6) in respect of forceful possession, but admittedly, no such 19/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 notice was issued. Therefore, according to him, there is nothing on record to show that the appellants had taken forceful possession, nor is there anything to show that the erstwhile owner had given voluntary possession and thereby, it would clearly indicate that only de jure possession had been taken by the appellants and not de facto possession before coming into force of the repeal of the Act. He relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 12 SCC 523 (Gajanan Kamlya Patil versus Addl.Collector and Competent authority (ULC) and others), wherein, in paragraph 12 and 13, it has been held as under:
"12. We may indicate, apart from the affidavits filed by the officials in this case, no other document has been made available either before the High Court or before this Court, either showing that the Appellant had voluntarily surrendered or the Respondents had taken peaceful or forcible possession of the lands.
13. We have, therefore, clearly indicated that it was always open to the authorities to take forcible possession and, in fact, in the notice issued under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, it was stated that if the possession had not been surrendered, possession would be taken by application of necessary force. For taking 20/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 forcible possession, certain procedures had to be followed. Respondents have no case that such procedures were followed and forcible possession was taken. Further, there is nothing to show that the Respondents had taken peaceful possession, nor there is anything to show that the Appellants had given voluntary possession. Facts would clearly indicate that only de jure possession had been taken by the Respondents and not de facto possession before coming into force of the repeal of the Act. Since there is nothing to show that de facto possession had been taken from the Appellants prior to the execution of the possession receipt in favour of MRDA, it cannot hold on to the lands in question, which are legally owned and possessed by the Appellants. Consequently, we are inclined to allow this appeal and quash the notice dated 17.2.2005 and subsequent action taken therein in view of the repeal of the ULC Act. The above reasoning would apply in respect of other appeals as well and all proceedings initiated against the Appellants, therefore, would stand quashed.”
12. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel would submit that after 21/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 taking note of these facts, the learned single Judge has rightly quashed the impugned order and held that the respondents/landowners are free to exploit the land in question, which requires no interference. With these contentions, the learned Senior counsel sought for dismissal of the Writ Appeal.
14. Heard the learned Addl.Advocate General appearing for the appellants and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the entire records available on record.
15. The specific case of the respondents is that the erstwhile owner of the subject property, M/s. Sri Hari Brick Works had settled the property by way of release deed in favour of their vendor, Mrs.Geetha vide document No.5374 of 2003 dated 14.12.2003 from whom, the respondents purchased the property to an extent of 1.87 hectares in S.No.379 of Manapakkam village, Sriperumbudur taluk, Kancheepuram District by way of a registered sale deed dated 31.10.2005 and ever since from the date of the purchase, the respondents have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the 22/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 property and later, they even developed the property and the CMDA also re-classified the lands as primary residential zone and the same was also notified in Government Gazettee dated 04.08.2004. Therefore, according to the respondents, no physical possession of the subject property was taken over by the authorities by virtue of ULC proceedings by following the procedure contemplated under the ULC Act.
16. While according to the appellants, the physical possession of the subject property was validly taken over by the appellants in accordance with the ULC Act well before the Repeal Act and vested with the Government by initiating ULC proceedings against M/s.Sri Hari Brick Works, which was the original owner at the time of initiation of the ULC proceedings and the respondents are the subsequent purchasers and they were not aware of the same. Out of total extent 18700 sq.mt., an extent of 18200 sq.mt. was declared as excess land and the order was also passed under Section 9(5) of the Act which was also served on the land owner on 09.03.1991 and the appeal referred by the land owner also came to be rejected vide order dated 07.09.1991 and thereafter, Notification under 23/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 Section 11(3) of the Act was published in Government Gazettee dated 08.03.1995, vesting the subject land with the Government free from all encumbrance and a notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was issued, calling upon the land owner to surrender and delivery the possession of the excess vacant land and it was also served on 18.07.1995. But as the land owner failed to come forward to surrender the excess land, possession of the land was taken over by the Revenue authority, viz., Revenue Inspector, Mangadu Firka on 21.06.1996.
17. Even on behalf of the appellants, it is demonstrated by producing relevant file before this Court, which contained a Land Delivery Receipt, dated 21.06.1996, a copy of which finds place at page no.91 of the typed set of papers filed on behalf of the appellants, wherein, two signatures were found, which were said to have been put by the then Deputy Tahsildar (ULT), O/o the Assistant Commissioner of ULT, Kudrathur, Madras-29, who is said to have handed over the possession of the subject land; and another signature by the then Revenue Inspector, Mangadu Firka, Sriperuambudur taluk. Relying upon this Land Delivery Receipt, it is 24/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 vehemently contended on behalf of the appellants that the authorities have taken over the possession on 21.06.1996.
18. Thus, now the issue that arises for consideration is, whether the physical possession of the subject property was effectively taken over by the State Government in accordance with law?
19. It is not in dispute that proceedings under the ULC Act were initiated in respect of the subject property by issuing notice 9(4) of the Act to the erstwhile owner M/s.Sri Hari Brick Work, calling upon to file objections if any for the proposed action of acquiring excess vacant land held by them. Later, as no objections were filed, the competent authority, vide proceedings dated 18.2.1991 (a copy of the same finds place at page no.70 of the typed set of papers filed on behalf of the appellants), determined an extent of 18200 sq.mt. as excess vacant land out of total extent of 18700 sq.mt. Thereafter, in order to take possession of the excess land, a notice under Section 11(5) of the Act, which is a final stage, was issued on 19.06.1995 ( a copy of the same finds place at page no.87 of the 25/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 typed set of papers) to M/s.Sri Hari Brick Work to surrender and deliver the possession of the property. Here, according to the appellants as stated already, since the owner did not come forward to surrender the subject property, the possession of the subject property was taken over by the Government by executing Land Delivery Receipt dated 21.06.1996 by two officials, viz., the then Deputy Deputy Tahsildar (ULT), O/o the Assistant Commissioner of ULT, Kudrathur, Madras-29, who acted as handing over authority and another, the then Revenue Inspector, Mangadu Firka, Sriperuambudur taluk, acted as taking over authority.
20. For better appreciation, it is relevant to extract Section 11(3) and (5) of the Act for the purpose of deciding the issue, the same are extracted as under:
“11. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit.-
(1) .... .... .....
(2) .... .... .....
(3) At any time after the publication of the
notification under sub-section(1) the competent authority 26/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 may, by notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section(1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified.
(4) .... .... ....
(5) Where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under sub-section(3), the competent authority may, by notice in writing, or any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice.”
21. Therefore, Section 11(3) of the Act very clearly provides that after the notification issued under Section 11 declaring the excess vacant land, the same shall be deemed to have been acquired and vested in the State Government, free from all encumbrances. However, it does not 27/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 provide that after the notification, the State Government shall be deemed to have come into possession of the land which was declared as excess. After such vesting of the land in the State under Section 11(3), the State has to necessarily initiate action for taking possession of the land by following the procedure contemplated Section 11(5) and 11(6) of the Act. Section 11(5) contemplates issuance of notice by the State Government to any person, who may be in possession, to surrender and deliver possession of the land to the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf. If the owner of the land or the person in possession refuses or fails to deliver possession of the land to the competent authority, the Government may take possession of the land even by using force, if necessary, as contemplated under Section 11(6) of the Act.
22. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the above said Land Delivery Receipt on which, heavy reliance is placed by the appellants to prove that the possession of the subject land was taken over by the Government, admittedly, does not contain the signature of the erstwhile land owner, which shows that the officials had mechanically recorded the 28/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 delivery receipt and therefore, virtually they have not taken the physical possession from the land owner, which renders Delivery Receipt as paper delivery, which is not authorised by law and thereby, it can at best be held as symbolic possession, whereas, the Act contemplates only actual possession. In fact, the process of taking delivery of and handing over the possession of the subject land was said to have been taken place only between two officials that too in the absence of owner of the subject land. If the land owner is not a party to the Land Delivery Receipt, the take over should be established by getting signature from independent witnesses, preparing Panchanama, etc. But the records reveal that it is only possession in papers. This procedure of taking and handing over the possession by two officials, is not contemplated in the Act and as such, it cannot be held as a valid one. When admittedly, the erstwhile land owner has not come forward to deliver the land within 30 days of the service of notice and continue to be in possession of such land, then the authority under the Act, has to resort to the procedure contemplated under Section 11(6) of the Act for the purpose of taking delivery of possession. Section 11(6) of the Act reads as under:
“(6) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an 29/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 order made under sub-section (5), the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to the State Government or to any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf any may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.”
23. Therefore, the above provision provides that if the land owner refuses or fails to comply with the order made under Section 11(5) of the Act, the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land to be given to the State Government and for this purpose, even to use force, if necessary, which means the right of the Government to initiate action against a person or trespasser or any person who is holding illegal possession over the acquired land.
24. Admittedly, the State Government has not resorted to Section 11(6) of the Act, which virtually allowed the erstwhile land owner and the subsequent purchasers, the respondents herein to be in possession of the subject land continuously. It is not the case of the appellants that the erstwhile land owner had voluntarily surrendered the possession of the 30/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 subject lands. Therefore, when the authority of the State did not take action under Section 11(6) of the Act for taking delivery of possession, then it cannot be held that the State Government has taken over the actual possession of the subject land.
25. It is not in dispute that the respondents herein had purchased the subject property by way of a registered sale deed dated 31.10.2005 from one Mrs.Geetha, whose favour, the original owner M/s.Hari Brick Works have settled the said property by way of a release deed vide document No.5374 of 2003 dated 14.12.2003. Therefore, right from the date of purchase of the property, according to the respondents, they have been in continuous possession and no notice under ULC Act was served on them. In fact, their continuous possession was established when notices were issued by the then Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Chennai Airport Expansion Scheme, invoking the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. If the respondents were not in possession of the subject property and vested with the Government, there was no necessity for the land acquisitioning authority to 31/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 issue notices to the respondents. Further, pursuant to the notice, dated 10.06.2008 issued by the land acquisitioning authority, calling upon the respondents to surrender the possession of the subject lands, the respondents had handed over the possession and requested for grant of the award. Therefore, till the respondents voluntarily surrendered the subject property in the year 2008 to the land acquisitioning authority, Chennai Airport Expansion Scheme, the respondents were in continuous possession of the property. These facts would reveal that that only de jure possession had been taken by the State Government and not de facto possession before coming into force of the repeal of the Act.
26. The issue as to whether symbolic or paper possession is a valid possession to sustain the proceedings initiated under the Act, has already been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.949 of 2013 and by judgment dated 3.9.2014, it has been held in paragraphs 8 to 10 as under:
"8. The issue as to whether taking over of the land by symbolic possession can be construed as possession 32/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 taken and based on such act, whether the authorities can claim right over the land after the Repeal Act, has already been considered and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs., Hari Ram reported in 2013-3-MLJ-408(SC) at para 38 and 39, which reads as follows:-
"38. Let us now examine the effect of Section 3 of the Repeal Act 15 of 1999 on sub-section (3) to Section 10 of the Act. The Repeal Act 1999 has expressly repealed the Act 33 of 1976. The Object and Reasons of the Repeal Act has already been referred to in the earlier part of this Judgment. Repeal Act has, however, retained a saving clause. The question whether a right has been acquired or liability incurred under a statute before it is repealed will in each case depend on the construction of the statute and the facts of the particular case.
“39. The mere vesting of the land under sub- section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.3.1999. State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section
10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the land owner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. The 33/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act."
27. In the case of “Government of Tamil Nadu vs., Mecca Prime Tannery: reported in 2012-6-MLJ-273, it has been held at para 33 to 35 as follows:-
"33. The phrases shall be deemed to have been acquired and shall be deemed to have been vested absolutely in the State Government occurring in Section 11(3) of the Act, in our considered opinion, mean that the right, title and interest in respect of the land shall be deemed to have been vested in the State Government and not possession of the land. After the right, title and invested is vested in the State Government by notification under Section 11(3), the State Government has to take further action for taking possession of the land, if the land owner or any person in possession refuses or fails to surrender or deliver possession of the land so vested in the Government.
34. There are cases where after notice under Section 11(5) of the Act, the land owner delivers 34/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 possession of the land and acknowledges the same in writing, and the State, after taking possession of the land so delivered voluntarily by the land owner, either comes into possession of the same or allots those lands to other persons, then in such cases, even thereafter, if the land owner or any person claims to be in possession of those lands, then we have no hesitation in holding that continuance of such possession even after surrendering or delivering the land to the State is illegal possession and they shall be treated as encroachers.
35. However, there are cases where although the competent authority issued the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act to the land owners or persons in possession to surrender or deliver possession of the land, but the land owner or the person in possession fails to deliver the land and continues to be in possession of such land and the authority of the State did not take action under Section 11(6) of the Act for taking delivery of possession, then in such cases, the State Government shall not be deemed to be in possession of those lands. "
28. From a perusal of the above said decisions, it is very clear that 35/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 mere vesting of land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the said Act would not confer any right on the State Government, in the absence of any proof that there was voluntary surrender of vacant land or there was a forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the said Act. Symbolic possession is totally different and distinct from physical possession. It is only a paper possession, which cannot be treated or construed as that of possession as required under the Act.
29. In fact, the learned single Judge, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, taking over the possession of the subject land by way of land delivery receipt and by following the decision of this Court in “Sathiyavathi andothers versus the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling and another” (W.P.No.32700 of 2003, dated 27.08.2019), has observed as under in paragraphs 16 and 17 as under:
“16. Therefore, insofar as the legal position with regard to taking over the possession of the land under the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings are 36/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 concerned, it is no more res-integra as it has been well settled that the mere land delivery receipt cannot be taken as a proof to show that the possession has been taken. The reason being that, if at all the possession was taken under Section 11(5) of the Act, it must be voluntary in nature and if it is voluntary in nature, the consent of the petitioner or the land holders would have been obtained by the respondents.
17. Otherwise, if it is compulsory in nature, where the respondents had to invoke Section 11(6) of the Act and that should have been recorded that Section 11(6) in the particular case has been invoked, therefore, forcibly the possession has been taken by recording the same with the help of the security people/police people and it is a case of the respondents that they have taken possession not under Section 11(6) but only under Section 11(5) of the said Act. When that being so, this land delivery receipt, wherein the Deputy Tahsildar ULT signed as handing over authority and Revenue Inspector of the concerned Firka signed as taken over authority cannot be taken into account as a token 37/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 of taking over the possession of the land in question. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the present case also falls in the same category, where the similar orders have been passed as quoted herein above. Accordingly, this petitioner also is entitled to succeed in this writ petition to that extent.” (emphasis added)
30. It is well settled law that once the possession is not taken over by the Government, all the proceedings under the Act must be held to have abated under Section 4 of the Repealing Act. A Constitutional Bench of the Honourable Apex Court in “Smt. Angoori Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors” reported in JT 2000 (Supp.1) SC 295, has held as under:
“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 38/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 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.”
31. It is not in dispute that the ULC proceedings were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978. The said Act was repealed by the Repeal Act 20 of 1999 with effect from 16.06.1999. Therefore, when the actual physical possession being the crux of the matter, mere vesting becomes unimportant especially after the repeal. If the physical possession of the excess vacant land is not taken or it remains with the land owner, then the proceedings relating to the acquisition of excess vacant land abates.
32. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the possession of the subject property said to have been taken over by the State Government pursuant to the above said Land Delivery Receipt, dated 21.06.1996, cannot be construed as possession taken in 39/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 accordance with law and therefore, the same does not confer any right on the State Government over the subject property and since the respondents have been in continuous possession till they surrendered the same to the land acquisitioning authority/3rd respondent, the proceedings intiated under the Urban Land Ceiling Act stand abated by virtue of the coming into force of the Repealing Act, 20 of 1999. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge.
33. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
(J.N.B.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.)
01.09.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
suk
To
1. The Commissioner,
Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai.
2. The Distrit Collector, Collectorate, 40/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 Kancheepuram District – 631 501.
3. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition) Chennai Airport Expansion Scheme, Patunool Chathiram, Sriperumpudur, Kancheepuram District.
4. The Tahsildar, Sriperumpudur.
5. The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax Kundrattur Region, Kancheepuram District, Chennai – 600 029.
41/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm ) W.A.No.1531 of 2025 J.NISHA BANU, J.
and M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
suk W.A.No.1531 of 2025 01.09.2025 42/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm )