Madras High Court
The Special Commissioner And vs Chidambarakumari on 2 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.4741 of 2021
1.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner for Urban Land
Ceiling and Urban Land Tax,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Urban Land Ceiling,
Tirunelveli and now
The Assistant Commissioner,
Urban Land Ceiling & Urban Land Tax,
Madurai at No.15, Plot No.4,
K.K.Nagar (East), First Street,
Madurai-625 020.
3.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Tahsildar,
Tirunelveli Taluk,
Tirunelveli. ... Appellants / Respondents
Vs.
T.C.Sundaresan (Died) ... Died / Writ Petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2021
1.Chidambarakumari
2.Swarnambika
3.T.S.Chelliah
4.Swarnalatha
5.Chidambarasundaram
6.Arumugarani ... Respondents / Writ Petitioners 2 to 7
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 28.01.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.24305 of 2016 on the
file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Standing Counsel for Government
JUDGMENT
************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for
Government appearing for the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2021
2.This appeal filed by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner
of Urban Land Ceiling and three others is directed against the order, dated
28.01.2019 passed in W.P.(MD)No.24305 of 2016. The said writ petition was
filed by Thiru.T.C.Sundaresan, who is no more and his legal heirs were brought
on record by order, dated 30.10.2018, who are the respondents herein.
3.The prayer sought for in the writ petition was to issue a writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order, passed by the first appellant, dated
23.07.2012 and to direct the appellants 3 and 4 to change the revenue records in
the name of respondents in respect of survey Nos.886, 891, 908, 915, 916 and
931 of Chatram Pudukulam village, Tirunelveli Taluk and District.
4.The said lands were the subject-matter of the proceedings under
Tami Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The respondents /
writ petitioners contended that the land acquisition proceedings stood abated
and they are entitled to the benefit of Repeal Act, 15 of 1999 and accordingly,
made a request to change the revenue records in their name. This was rejected
by the first appellant, by order, dated 23.07.2012, which was impugned in the
writ petition. Before the Writ Court, the appellants contended that the land in
question was taken over and handed over to the Revenue Authorities, during the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2021
year 1981. This contention was seriously disputed by the writ petitioners
stating that possession continue to remain with the writ petitioners and what
was recorded was only a paper possession.
5.The learned Writ Court, after taking note of the submission made on
either side, noted that the original writ petitioner had filed W.P.(MD) No.22594
of 2006, wherein, he sought for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to restrain the
appellants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the subject
property. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by order, dated
19.12.2009. In the said writ petition, it had been contended by the learned
Special Government Pleader that all the proceedings initiated under the said Act
against the said lands, stood abated. The learned Writ Court had recorded the
said submission, which is to the following effect :
"7.Be that as it may, I am of the view that this
writ petition can be disposed of on a very short ground.
It is not in dispute that the original writ petitioner filed
W.P.No.22594 of 2006 in which he sought issuance of a
Writ of Mandamus for restraining the respondents from
interfering with his right of possession and enjoyment of
the petition mentioned lands. When the matter was taken
up for final disposal on 19.12.2009, the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents
submitted that all the proceedings initiated against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2021
writ petitioner have already been abated. The relevant
paragraphs in the said order reads as under:
“2.Learned counsel appearing for
the Special Government has submitted that the
Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act has been repealed by Repeal
Act 20 of 1999, which was published in the
Gazette on 16.06.2009. He has further
submitted that Section 4 of the Repeal Act
provide that all the 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 other authority, shall abate.
3.In view of the submission made by
the learned Special Government Pleader,
which position is not disputed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the proceedings
initiated against the petitioner shall stand
abate and the writ petition is accordingly
closed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.”
6.The original writ petitioner, by taking note of the order, dated
19.12.2009, passed in W.P.(MD)No.22594 of 2006, made a request to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2021
appellants 3 and 4 to change the revenue records in his name, which was
rejected by order, dated 23.07.2012, which was impugned in the writ petition.
7.When the writ petition was heard, the appellants contended that the
Department is contemplating of filing a writ appeal against the order, dated
19.12.2019 passed in W.P.(MD)No.22594 of 2006. The learned Writ Court
noted that the original writ petitioner waited for four years and thereafter, filed
the second writ petition namely, W.P.(MD)No.24305 of 2016 and there is
absolutely no justification for the department to state that they are
contemplating of filing a writ appeal against the order, dated 19.12.2009 passed
in W.P.(MD)No.22594 of 2006.
8.Furthermore, when the present writ petition was heard by the
learned Single Bench, it is noted that it was filed in the year 2016 and taken up
for disposal during January 2019 and that the writ petition was filed after 4 ½
years and it is taken up after 6 ½ years and the appellant Department cannot be
heard to say that they will verify as to whether the appeal was filed against the
order passed in W.P(MD)No.22594 of 2006, dated 19.12.2019. Therefore, the
learned Writ Court had rightly rejected the contention raised by the appellant
department and held that the original writ petitioner, who is now represented by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2021
his legal heirs / respondents, are entitled for the benefit of the Repeal Act 15 of
1999. These facts will clearly show that there is absolutely no error in the order
and direction issued by the learned Writ Court. Hence, the appellants have not
made out any case for interference with the impugned order passed by the writ
Court.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The
appellants are directed to record the name of the respondents in revenue records
in respect of the lands in question, within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
02.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
RM/rmi
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
RM/rmi
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2021
02.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
