Madras High Court
The Principal Commissioner vs M.Venkataraman on 22 July, 2014
Author: M.M.Sundresh
Bench: Satish K.Agnihotri, M.M.Sundresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.07.2014
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH
W.A.No.239 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2014
1.The Principal Commissioner,
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.The Competent Authority,
Urban Land Ceiling
Kundrathur at Adambakkam,
Chennai-600 088.
3.The Tahsildar,
Kundrathur, Chennai. ... Appellants
Vs.
1. M.Venkataraman
2. Mrs. Girija Venkataraman .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order
dated 19.10.2012 made in W.P.No.40239 of 2006.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Srinivasan
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.V.Ramesh
JUDGMENT
Challenging the proceedings of the 2nd appellant initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 and seeking a further direction to treat the proceedings as abated under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act (Act No.20 of 1999), the respondents filed writ petition in W.P.No.40239 of 2006 before the learned single Judge.
2. For making reliance upon Section 4 of the Repeal Act, by which all 2 proceedings pending as on the date of commencement of the Repeal Act got abated if possession has not been taken, it was contended by the respondents before the learned single Judge that physical possession has not been taken. The appellants have submitted that the possession was taken as early as on 21.05.1999. The files have been produced before the learned single Judge. After thorough scrutiny of the files, it was held by the learned single Judge in the following manner:
"9. The respondents have taken a stand that the possession of the land was taken on 21.5.1999. The learned Additional Government Pleader, produced the files which contain a Land Delivery Receipt in Rc.No.1332/97A. The Receipt contains several columns, one of which relates to the date of handing over possession. As against the said column, the date 21.5.1999 has been typed. At the bottom of the Receipt, there is an endorsement on the left side with the words "handed over by" printed therein. On the right hand side, at the bottom of the Receipt, the words "taken over by" are printed. In the space below the words "handed over by", the Special Deputy Tahsildar has signed. In the space below the words "taken over by", the Revenue Inspector, Kundrathur Firka, has signed. Both the Officers have written by hand, the date 21.5.1999 just below their respective signatures. In other words, the land described in the Land Delivery Receipt was allegedly handed over by the Special Deputy Tahsildar-I, Office of the Competent Authority (ULC) to a Revenue Inspector of the Kundrathur Firka, Sriperumbudur Taluk, on 21.5.1999.
10. But, unfortunately for the respondents, they must first show that the possession of the land was taken by the Special Deputy Tahsildar in the Office of the Competent Authority before they could show that they handed over possession to the Revenue Department. The handing over of the land by the Competent Authority under the Act, to the Revenue Authority, has taken place by exchange of a Delivery Receipt. In other words, it was a paper delivery. For the purpose of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, what is required to be shown by the respondents is that the respondents, namely, the Competent Authority, under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, had taken possession from the owners.
Without first showing that they took possession of the land from the owner or occupier, they cannot show that they handed over the land to the Revenue Department. In the file, there is nothing to indicate that the Competent Authority or anyone from his Office, took possession of the land from the petitioners. Therefore, the Delivery Receipt, by which the Competent Authority claims to have handed over possession to the Revenue Authority, cannot be accepted. If the files do not indicate that the Competent Authority had taken possession before 21.5.1999, then it 3 would not have been possible for the Competent Authority to hand over possession to the Revenue Department.
11. In pages 103 and 105 of the file, notices in Form VII under Section 11(5) of the Act, are found. These notices are dated 20.4.1999. They are addressed only to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners. Therefore, it is clear that persons in actual physical possession, namely, the petitioners were not issued with any notice under Section 11(5).
12. Let me keep the above point aside for a minute. Let me go by the notices in Form-VII issued under Section 11(5). As I have already stated, these notices are actually dated 20.4.1999. Pages 104 and 106 of the file show that these notices were actually despatched on 24.4.1999. Paragraph-1 of these notices make it clear that the land owner was supposed to hand over possession of the lands, within 30 days of receipt of these notices. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notices make it clear that if possession was not handed over within 30 days, the Authority would take possession by using force. Therefore, there is a statutory requirement for the Competent Authority to wait for 30 days.
13. Since the files show that the notices under Section 11(5) dated 20.4.199 were actually despatched only on 24.4.1999, they could not have been served on the petitioners or even their predecessor, on any date before 25.4.1999. The method by which these notices were despatched, is not indicated anywhere in the file. There is also no acknowledgement or proof to show that these notices were served on the addressee. But let me assume that these notices were duly served on the addressee. However, they could not have been served on any date before 25.4.1999, since they were despatched only on 24.4.1999. Therefore, the 30 days period from the date of service (or deemed service) would expire only on 25.5.1999. It was only after 25.5.1999 that the Competent Authority himself would have become eligible to take possession of the land by using force as per Section 11(5). He was not entitled to take possession by use of force before 25.4.1999. It is not the claim of the respondents that the owner voluntarily handed over possession. Therefore, if the Competent Authority could not have taken possession, on or before 25.5.1999, there is no way the Competent Authority could have handed over possession to the Revenue Authorities even on 21.5.1999. Thus, the claim that possession was taken over on 21.5.1999 is a theory just cooked up in the records and cannot be believed. Once it is found that possession was not taken over on the date claimed by them viz., 21.5.1999, the second limb of Section 3(1)(a) is not satisfied. Hence, Section 4 would go to the rescue of the petitioners."
3. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed by declaring that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, inasmuch as on the date of the said enactment, viz., 16.06.1999, possession has not been taken over by the appellants.
4Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been filed.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that possession has already been taken as early as on 21.05.1999 and as such, the order passed by the learned single Judge will have to be set aside.
5. We are not inclined to entertain this writ appeal, as, after thorough scrutiny of the files, the learned single Judge has rendered a factual finding. The appellants are not able to produce any contra material. After going through the entire file, the learned single Judge recorded a finding that the appellants could not have taken possession on or before 21.05.1999, since the notices have been despatched only on 24.04.1999. Therefore, it is impossible for the appellants to take possession before 21.05.1999. Accordingly, the learned single Judge was pleased to hold that it was factually incorrect to state that possession was taken on 21.05.1999. In view of the said factual finding, we do not propose to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge.
6. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
(S.K.A., ACJ) (M.M.S.J.,) 22.07.2014 Index:Yes/No usk The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice and M.M.Sundresh,J 5 usk To
1.The Principal Commissioner, Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.The Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling Kundrathur at Adambakkam, Chennai-600 088.
3.The Tahsildar, Kundrathur, Chennai.
W.A.No.239 of 201422.07.2014