Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: land ceiling acts in P. Gopirathnam And 4 Others vs Ferrodous Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep. By ... on 3 March, 1999Matching Fragments
Therefore, it is clear that the agreement of sale which was entered into during the pendency of the return filed under the Urban Land Ceiling Act cannot be considered to be a valid and enforceable agreement. In the eye of law, it is a void agreement. The appropriate authority is a statutory authority. It exercises the power under chapter XX-C of the Act, Invalidity of an agreement of sale makes the whole transaction' unenforceable. As such, it introduces a serious defect in the statement filed under sub-section (2) of section 269 UC of the Act, on the basis of such invalid and unenforceable agreement of sale and thereby attracts sub-section (4)of section 269UC of the Act. It is one of the cordial principles of interpretation should advance and subserve the object of the statute ana should not result in defeating the very object of the statute. We have already referred to the objects and reasons for introducing sub-section (4) of section 269 UC of the Act. A statutory authority exercising statutory power cannot be compelled to ignore the basic defect in the agreement, which also disables the appropriate authority to make its decision as to per-emptive purchase, on determining the real market value, which will be the basis for taking a decision regarding pre-emptive purchase, A s in the instant case, until the proceeding is completed as per section 11 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, no transaction of sale or purchase can take place. The appropriate authority cannot be expected or compelled to act in contravention of section 6 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and to make a decision as to pre-emptive purchase. Such an interpretation would not only defeat the very object of sub- section (4) of section 269 UC of the Act, and it would also result in compelling the appropriate to act in contravention of the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, or not to make any decision as to pre-emptive purchase of the immovable prpperty concerned in the agreement. The very introduction of sub-section (4) of section 269UC of the Act is to bale out the appropriate authority from such a situation and to enable it to have the third alternative to make an appropriate decision in accordance with law."(Italies Supplied)
12. Section 5 (3) of the Central Act is corresponding to section 6 of Tamil Nadu State Act.
13. Now, we will come to the other decisions of our High Court, which held that a decree for specific performance cannot be granted in violation of Urban Land Ceiling Act. First of the decisions is reported in Singaram T.K. v. The Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal, Chepauk, 1992 W.L.R 389. In that decision, a Division Bench consisting of Justice Dr.A.S.Anand, J (as he then was) and Justice Raju (as he then was) had occasion to consider the scope of Urban Land Ceiling Act. In that case the question that came for consideration was, what is the effect of land acquisition proceedings that was initiated and pending when Urban Land Ceiling act came into force on persons having excess area. Their Lordships said that the pendency of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act could not in any way affect the proceedings taken under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The action of the state in not pursuing the acquisition proceedings at any point of time in view of the provisions of the "Urban Land Ceiling Act is not open to question nor could the authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Act be denied of their power to proceed against those covered under the Act. Their Lordships took into consideration section 43 of Urban Land Ceiling Act, which had overriding effect. Section 43 of the Act read thus:
"Section 43 - Act to override other laws: The provisions of this act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or agreement or decree or other of a court, tribunal or other authority."
In paragraph 5 of the Judgment, their Lordships held thus, "... As would be seen from a plain reading of the section, the Urban Land Ceiling Act overrides the other laws for the time being in force or any custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a court, tribunal or other authority. In view of section 43 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Urban Land Ceiling Act has to be given a full play and any proceeding which are pending on the date ' when the Urban Land Ceiling Act comes into force would have to cease in case the Urban Land Ceiling Act applies to those proceedings, to the extent of such application and declaration of the excess land. A provision similar to S.43 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act is available in S.4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. The Division Bench in State v. Narendra Dairy Farms (P) Ltd., however, did not advert to the effect of S.4 on the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. It appears that the provisions of S.4 were not brought to the notice of the learned Division Bench, for, had the same been brought to the notice of the learned Division Bench, for, had the same been brought to its notice, the overriding effect of S.4 could not have been ignored and the judgment would then perhaps have been different. We, therefore, do not find it possible to apply the ratio laid down in State v. Narendra Dairy Farms (P) Ltd., to the present case in view of S.43 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The learned single Judge therefore, while deciding Writ Petition No. 2553 of 1981 rightly arrived at the conclusion that the pendency of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act could not in any way affect the proceedings taken under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Thus, for the additional ground that we have referred to above based on the interpretation of S.43 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned single judge in Writ Petition No, 2553 of 1981 calls for no interference and we hold that the action of the State in not pursuing the acquisition proceedings at any point of time in view of the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act is not open to question nor could the authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Act be denied of their powers to proceed against those covered under the Act. Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1988 consequently must fail and is hereby dismissed.
22. In T.K. Singaran v. The Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal, Chepauk, Madras - 5 and others, 1992 WLR 389, another Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the provisions of S.43 of the Act. The Bench after extracting the Section, observed as follows:
"As would be seen from a plain reading of the Section, the Urban Land Ceiling Act overrides the other laws for the time being in force of any custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a court, tribunal or other authority. In view of S.43 of Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Urban Land Ceiling has to be given a full play and any proceedings which are pending on the date when the Urban Land Ceiling Act comes into force would have to cease in case of Urban Land Ceiling Act applied to those proceedings to the extent of such application and declaration of the excess land. A provision similar to S.43 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act is available in S.4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961."