Madras High Court
Dr.P.Samudram vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 14 February, 2014
Author: V. Dhanapalan
Bench: V. Dhanapalan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.02.2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN W.P.Nos.2856 to 2859 of 2014 1. Dr.P.Samudram ... Petitioner in W.P.No.2856/2014 2. M.Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.2857/2014 3. M.Nirmala ... Petitioner in W.P.No.2858/2014 4. S.Ayyadurai ... Petitioner in W.P.No.2859/2014 -vs- 1. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9. 2. THE COMMISSIONER URBAN LAND CELLING & TAX, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI-600 005. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER URBAN LAND TAX, ALANDUR, CHENNAI. 4. THE TAHSILDAR OFFICE OF THE TALUK OFFICE, ST. THOMAS MOUNT / ALANDUR, CHENNAI .. Respondents in all the petitions Common Prayer: Writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue pattas in respect of lands covered in Plot Nos.21, 14, 11 and 8 in S.No.174/2 Part situate in Madipakkam Village, Kancheepuram District, measuring about 2760, 2400, 2400 and 2400 sq.fts. and consequently to make entry in the revenue records maintained by the Revenue Department to the effect that the petitioners are owners of the land situated at Plot Nos.21, 14, 11 and 8 covered in S.No.174/2 Part Situate in Madipakkam Village, Kancheepuram District. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel For Mr.A.Jenasenan For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Spl. Govt. Pleader ***** C O M M O N O R D E R
By consent of the learned counsel on either side, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. Heard Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.A.Jenasenan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. These writ petitions are filed, seeking for a direction to the respondents to issue patta in respect of lands covered in Plot Nos.21, 14, 11 and 8 in S.No.174/2 Part situate in Madipakkam Village, Kancheepuram District, measuring about 2760, 2400, 2400 and 2400 sq.fts. and consequently to make entry in the revenue records maintained by the Revenue Department to the effect that the petitioners are owners of the land situated at Plot Nos. 21, 14, 11 and 8 covered in S.No.174/2 Part Situate in Madipakkam Village, Kancheepuram District.
4. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from W.P.No.2856 of 2014, as common question involved in these writ petitions. The facts leading to filing of these writ petitions read as follows:
i)The petitioner is the owner of the land measuring about 2760 sq.feet comprised in S.No.174/2 Part at Plot No.21 in the approved layout at Madipakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The property forms part of a larger extent of property originally belonged to one K.C.Murugesa Naicker. He has approached the authority, viz., Director of Town and Country Planning, seeking to sanction labout plan and the authority sanctioned the layout plan in the year 1974. The said Murugesa Naicker conveyed Plot No.21 comprised in the approved labout in favour of the purchaser therein. On 27.11.1985, by a registered sale deed, Jeewajjoo & Sons conveyed the above extent to and in favour of Dr.Shymala Natarajan. The said Dr.Shymala Natarajan in turn by a registered sale deed dated 07.03.2001 conveyed the aforementioned extent to and in favour of the petitioner.
ii)The petitioners submits that the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act came into force on 17.05.1978 and proceedings were initiated against the original owner, viz., Murugesa Naicker under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). Even though proceedings were initiated, the authority under the Land Ceiling Act had not taken possession of the land from the persons like the petitioner in terms of Section 11 of the said Act. In addition to that, before the Ceiling Act came into force as early as in the year 1973/1974, a Layout was approved by the Competent Authority at the request made by Murugesa Naicker. On the strength of the approved Layout, the said Murugesa Naicker sold almost all the plots in favour of third parties. Since he has no interest over the property after the sale, he has not responded to the notice issued by the authorities under the Ceiling Act. The persons similarly placed like the petitioner are not able to get the patta in respect of the land purchased by them on the ground that the lands are covered under the notice issued by Urban Land Ceiling authorities.
iii)The petitioner states that Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Repeal Act, 1999 came into force with effect from 14.06.1999 by which the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1978 was repealed. Under the Repeal Act, if possession is not taken in terms of the original act, all the proceedings under the old act shall stand abated. In addition to that even as per the original act, if a Layout is approved prior to 1978, the very Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act will have no application to the said land covered by the approved Layout. Taking into account these facts, persons similarlyl placed like the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.13863 of 2001, seeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax dated 31.10.1986 and to quash the same. When the said writ petition came up for final hearing on 25.06.2010, after hearing the arguments at length, the Hon'ble High Court held that notice under Section 11(5) should be served on the respective persons including the person who may be in possession of the property. After a detailed discussion, this Hon'ble Court has found that the possession under Section 11(5) has not been taken from the persons, who are similarly placed like the petitioner in the manner known to law and consequently, this Hon'ble Court also allowed the writ petition and quashed the proceedings initiated by the authorities and also the respondents are restrained from proceedings further in respect of the lands as per the provision of the Repealed Act and the petitioner submits that the said order became final and rightly the respondents have chosen not to file any writ appeal against the said order since the said order is passed relying upon two earlier Division Bench judgments rendered by this Court. The effect of the order is that the proceedings initiated under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act in respect of the land referred to above are quashed.
iv)It is the submission of the petitioner that the proceedings initiated under the Urban Land Ceiling Act having been quashed by this Court, the petitioner approached the authorities on various occasions seeking to issue patta in respect of the land purchased by the petitioner. Finally, on 24.09.2013, the petitioner approached the Commissioner Urban Land Ceiling and Tax, Chepauk, requesting him to direct the Revenue authorities to issue patta and also make entry in the revenue records to show that the petitioner is the owner of the land referred to above, for which a reply came from the Commissioner on 27.09.2013, directing the petitioner to approach the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Alandur, Inspite of the communication issued as early as on 27.09.2013, till date, neither the Commissioner nor the Assistant Commissioner has not taken any steps to see that the land belonging to the petitioner has not been covered under the Urban Land Tax and consequently, the authorities under Urban Land Tax has to direct the revenue department to make an entry in the revenue records about the ownership of the plot as well as to direct the revenue authorities to issue patta in respect of the land. But, till date, nothing had happened from the authorities concerned.
v)Since the respondent has not taken any action on the request made by the petitioner for issuance of patta in respect of the property purchased long prior to the Repealing Act, having found no other efficacious alternative remedy and pending consideration of the request, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. On the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material documents available on record.
6. Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the order dated 25.06.2010 passed in W.P.No.13863 of 2001, the petitioners approached the Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling & Tax, Chepauk, Chennai / 2nd respondent for suitable instructions to the Revenue authorities to issue pattas to the petitioners, consequent to which, petitioners were, vide reply dated 27.09.2013, directed to go before the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Alandur, Chennai / 3rd respondent. He also submits that though this Court allowed the writ petition as early as on 25.06.2010, as of now, no positive steps were taken by the respondents for implementation of the order and it is also not permissible for the respondents to sit over on the decision of this Court. Therefore, claim of petitioners has to be considered in the light of the decision rendered by this Court.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. Krishna Sales (P) Ltd., reported in 1994 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 73, wherein it has been held as under:
"6. According to the said para 4, the goods will not be released even where the party succeeds in cases where the customs authorities decide to go in appeal before the Tribunal or the Supreme Court. They will consider the issuance of such certificate only after the decision of the Tribunal or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. The learned Counsel for the respondent characterises the said direction as arbitrary and contrary to law. We see the force in his submission. If the authorities are of the opinion that the goods ought not to be released pending the appeal, the straight-forward course for them is to obtain an order of stay or other appropriate direction from the Tribunal or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. Without obtaining such an order they cannot refuse to implement the order under appeal. As is well-known, mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay or suspension of the order appealed against. Moreover, such detention is likely to create several complications relating to the demurrage charges besides the possible deterioration of the machinery and goods. We hope and trust that the Collector of Customs, Bombay shall appropriately revise the said public notice in the light of the observations made herein. If he does not do so, there is a likelihood of the customs authorities being themselves made liable for demurrage charges in appropriate cases."
8. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, has vehemently contended that against the order of Hon'ble single Judge, an appeal has been preferred by the respondents in the year 2013 along with a miscellaneous petition for condonation of delay in preference of appeal (W.A.SR.No.103768 of 2013) and the petitioners have to wait till the decision in appeal. It is further contended that petitioners have not apprised concerned jurisdictional authorities for their reliefs. However, in view of the limited prayer sought for by the petitioners and also considering the fact that the present writ petitions are filed only for a direction to the respondents to consider issuance of pattas to petitioners, learned Special Government Pleader has requested this Court that respondents may be given a reasonable time to consider the claim of petitioners, subject to outcome of writ appeal. He has also fairly conceded that as on date, there is no interim order of suspension of the order of Hon'ble Single Judge.
9. The narration of facts pleaded in all these writ petitions would go to show that owing to purchase of lands vide registered sale deeds, petitioners are in occupation of lands and enjoying the same with all developmental activities. It is seen that on account of proceedings initiated under the Act, petitioners approached this Court by way of filing writ petition in W.P.No.13863 of 2001, claiming the benefit of Repeal Act and the same was allowed on 25.06.2010. In pursuance of the said order and considering that Actio quaelibet it sua via (An action keeps its course), petitioners have requested the 2nd respondent for issuance of pattas, to which, a reply was received, with a direction to approach concerned Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax. Be that as it may, finding no other effective and efficacious remedy, the petitioners are before this Court, seeking a direction to the respondents to issue patta in respect of lands covered in Plot Nos.21, 14, 11 and 8 in S.No.174/2 Part located at Madipakkam Village, Kancheepuram District, measuring about 2760, 2400, 2400 and 2400 sq.fts. respectively and also to make entry in the revenue records, maintained by the Revenue Department to the effect that the petitioners are owners of the land situated at Plot Nos.21, 14, 11 and 8 covered in S.No.174/2 Part Situate in Madipakkam Village, Kancheepuram District.
10. It is clear from the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader that respondents have moved this Court by way of appeal against the order of this Court dated 25.06.2010 after a lapse of three years and the said appeal also has not been taken on file so far on account of pendency of miscellaneous petition, seeking to condone the delay. It is also not in dispute that there is no interim stay of operation of the order passed in the writ petition. If that can be the position, in absence of any legal impediment, it is incumbent on the respondents to consider the claim of petitioners and take a decision in accordance with law.
11. In the light of the above stated position, all these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents, particularly the 1st respondent to consider issuance of pattas to the petitioners favourably, in respect of lands covered in Plot Nos. 21, 14, 11 and 8 in S.No.174/2 Part situated in Madipakkam Village, Kancheepuram District, measuring about 2760, 2400, 2400 and 2400 sq.fts. respectively and to make entry in the revenue records, maintained by the Revenue Department to the effect that the petitioners are owners of the land situated at Plot Nos.21, 14, 11 and 8, covered in S.No.174/2 Part Situated in Madipakkam Village, Kancheepuram District, keeping in view the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.13863 of 2001 and the said exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any case, not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. However, it is made clear that in case the appeal filed by the respondents, which is now at the S.R. stage, is taken on file and heard by this Court, final decision, if any taken in the said appeal, will be binding on the parties to these writ petitions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
14.02.2014 Index: Yes Internet: Yes ar To
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9.
2. THE COMMISSIONER URBAN LAND CELLING & TAX, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI-600 005.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER URBAN LAND TAX, ALANDUR, CHENNAI.
4. THE TAHSILDAR OFFICE OF THE TALUK OFFICE, ST. THOMAS MOUNT / ALANDUR, CHENNAI V. DHANAPALAN,J., ar W.P.Nos.2856 to 2859 of 2014 14.02.2014