Madras High Court

M/S.Goramandal Steel Products vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 5 October, 2021

                                                                   W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 05.10.2021

                                                      CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                           W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005
                                                        and
                                        W.P.M.P.Nos.27242 and 27251 of 2005 &
                                           W.P.M.P.Nos.105 and 106 of 2008

                 M/s.Goramandal Steel Products,
                 Rep.by its Partner,
                 Suresh Kumar Sanghi,
                 S/o.Dulichand Sanghi,
                 Having Office at No.17-A, Sembudoss Street,
                 Chennai – 600 001.                                  ... Petitioner in
                                                                         W.P.Nos.24882 of 2005

                 M/s.Sanghi Trading Corporation,
                 Rep. by its Partner,
                 Suresh Kumar Sanghi,
                 S/o. Dulichand Sanghi,
                 Having Office at No.17-A,
                 Sembudoss Street,
                 Chennai – 600 001.                                  ... Petitioner in
                                                                         W.P.Nos.24890 of 2005

                                                         Vs.


                 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
                    Rep.by the Commissioner and
                     Secretary to Government,
                    Revenue Department,
                    Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

                1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                   W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005




                 2. The Special Commissioner and
                    Commissioner of Land Reforms,
                    Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

                 3. The Assistant Commissioner of
                    Urban Land Tax and Ceiling,
                    Madhavaram Area,
                    Chennai – 600 099.                               ... Respondents in

both Writ Petitions

Prayer in W.P.No.24882 of 2005: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the connected records of the third respondent relating to his proceedings R.C.No.5018/84/C, dated 30.10.1985 (Certified copy issued on 20.06.2005) passed under Section 9(5) of the Principal Act, declaring an extent of 73,850 sq.mtrs in Survey Numbers 258/4 part and 258/5 part of Manali Village as excess vacant land and the issuing of notice in Form VII U/R.10(3) of the said Rules U/s.11(5) of the said Act in his proceedings R.C.4973/91-D, dated 11.06.1992 (Certified copy issued on 20.06.2005) (to one Jayaraj) and quash the same so far as the petitioner is concerned directing the third respondent to correct the entry made in the Revenue Records of Taluk and Village Office as Government Poramboke land allegedly acquired as excess vacant land.

Prayer in W.P.No.24890 of 2005: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the connected records of the third respondent relating to his proceedings R.C.No.5018/84/C, dated 30.10.1985 (Certified copy issued on 06.05.2005)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005

passed under Section 9(5) of the Principal Act, declaring an extent of 52,275 sq.mtrs in Survey Numbers 258/4 part and 258/5 part of Manali Village as excess vacant land and the revised orders passed U/s. 9(5) of the said Act by the third respondent in his proceedings R.C.No.5018/84/D, dated 27.03.1991, declaring the excess vacant land only 52,300 sq.mts in S.No.258/5 part of Manali Village as well as the issuing of notice in Form VII, U/R.10(3) of the said Rules U/s.11(5) of the said Act, in his proceedings R.C.5018/84/B, dated 30.12.1991 (Certified copy issued on 06.05.2005) (to one Venugopal Pillai) and quash the same so far as the petitioner is concerned directing the third respondent to correct the entry made in the Revenue Records of Taluk and Village Office as Government Poramboke land allegedly acquired as excess vacant land.


                                      For Petitioner
                                      in both W.Ps.    : Mr.V.Ramesh
                                                         for M/s.Sampath Kumar & Associates

                                      For Respondents
                                      in both W.Ps    : Mr.Richardson Wilson
                                                        Government Advocate


                                            COMMON ORDER

W.P.No.24882 of 2005 is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, to call for the connected records of the third respondent relating to

his proceedings R.C.No.5018/84/C, dated 30.10.1985 (Certified copy issued

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005

on 20.06.2005) passed under Section 9(5) of the Principal Act, declaring an

extent of 73,850 sq.mtrs in Survey Numbers 258/4 part and 258/5 part of

Manali Village as excess vacant land and the issuing of notice in Form VII

U/R.10(3) of the said Rules U/s.11(5) of the said Act in his proceedings

R.C.4973/91-D, dated 11.06.1992 (Certified copy issued on 20.06.2005) (to

one Jayaraj) and quash the same so far as the petitioner is concerned and to

direct the third respondent to correct the entry made in the Revenue Records of

Taluk and Village Office as Government Poramboke land allegedly acquired as

excess vacant land.

2. W.P.No.24890 of 2005 is filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, to call for the connected records of the third respondent relating to

his proceedings R.C.No.5018/84/C, dated 30.10.1985 (Certified copy issued

on 06.05.2005) passed under Section 9(5) of the Principal Act, declaring an

extent of 52,275 sq.mtrs in Survey Numbers 258/4 part and 258/5 part of

Manali Village as excess vacant land and the revised orders passed U/S. 9(5)

of the said Act by the third respondent in his proceedings R.C.No.5018/84/D,

dated 27.03.1991, declaring the excess vacant land only 52,300 sq.mts in

S.No.258/5 part of Manali Village as well as the issuing of notice in Form VII,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005

U/R.10(3) of the said Rules U/s.11(5) of the said Act, in his proceedings

R.C.5018/84/B, dated 30.12.1991 (Certified copy issued on 06.05.2005) (to

one Venugopal Pillai) and quash the same so far as the petitioner is concerned

and direct the third respondent to correct the entry made in the Revenue

Records of Taluk and Village Office as Government Poramboke land allegedly

acquired as excess vacant land.

3. It is the case of the petitioners is that they had purchased their

respective portions of the land ad-measuring 4.52 acres and 1.00 acres from

out of a larger extent of an agricultural lands comprised in S.Nos.258/5 part

and 258/4 part situated at Manali Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District

from one G.Jayaraj and ten others including one Venugopal Pillai by the

registered sale deeds dated 07.05.1984 and 17.05.1984, vide document

Nos.1362/84 and 1369/84 respectively on the file of the office of the Sub

Registrar Office, Thiruvottiyur. From the date of the purchase, the petitioners

are in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands by paying all kist and

other dues to the Government from Faslis 1397 to 1414 without any default.

The said lands were put to use for agricultural purpose. However, the third

respondent resorted to have issued notice under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act' for short) requiring the said Venugopal Pillai to file a Return under

Section 7(1) of the Act. Further, he was not a person who held the larger extent

of land to file his objections and reported that there are other owners in the

said lands and without considering his objection, the same was over-ruled and

notice was issued under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act to acquire the excess

vacant land from the previous owners of the larger extent. However, the

petitioners were not served with any notice as contemplated under Rule 8 of

the Rules. Without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity to

raise objections to the notice issued under Section 9(5) of the Act, an extent of

52,275 sq.mts was declared as excess vacant land. The petitioners have

purchased the subject properties in the year 1984 and have been in continuous

physical possession and enjoyment of the same. The said Principal Act itself

was repealed by the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal

Act, 20/99 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repeal Act' for short) with effect

from 16.06.1999. Section 4 of the Repeal Act is very clear that when the

possession has not been taken under the Principal Act till the Repeal Act came

into effect viz., on 16.06.1999, the entire proceedings initiated under the

Principal Act stand abated.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in both the Writ

Petitions, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of their respective

properties from the date of sale deeds viz., in the year 1984. The sale deeds

dated 07.05.1984 and 17.05.1984 categorically recited that the subject lands

are agricultural lands and as such, the said Act is not applicable to the subject

properties, since they cannot be said as Urban Land. In the notice issued under

Section 9(5) of the Act dated 30.10.1985, it is categorically mentioned about

the issuance of notice to the said Jayaraj Nadar, who is the vendor of the

petitioners dated 22.07.1985 and they did not raise any objections or reply to

the office. In the meanwhile, a portion of the land has been sold to several

persons. Therefore, these sales became null and void under Section 6 of the

Act. Therefore, the third respondent had knowledge about the sale of the

subject properties and after purchase of the properties, the petitioners were

issued patta and the said properties were assessed to “kist” and other Revenue

dues. Therefore, the entire Revenue Records were mutated in favour of the

petitioners and even then, the petitioners were not served with any notice as

required under the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that insofar as

the possession of the properties is concerned, it is very well with the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005

petitioners in respect of the subject properties. The third respondent did not

issue any notice under Section 11(5) of the Act to the actual register holders of

the lands and the person in occupation of the land. On the date of issuance of

notice under Section 11(5) of the Act dated 30.12.1991, the petitioners are the

owner of the said lands in view of the sale deed dated 07.05.1984 from the said

Jayaraj and others. Even assuming that the notice under Section 11(5) of the

Act was issued before the possession of the subject properties, they were never

handed over to the third respondent. Therefore, if the land owner failed to hand

over the excess land, the third respondent ought to have issued notice under

Section 11(6) of the Act for forcible possession of the subject properties.

Therefore, the third respondent never issued under Section 11(5) of the Act as

well as under Section 11(6) of the Act to take physical possession of the

subject properties. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the

petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1486 (T.V.Antony -vs- State of Tamil Nadu

& others).

5. The respondents filed counter affidavit, from which, it reveals that

Gopal Nadar, Venugopal Pillai and Karna Pillai were the owners of the lands

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005

comprised in S.Nos.258/5 and 258/4 ad-measuring an extent of 27.82 acres as

per Revenue Records and they have not filed Return under Section 7(1) of the

Act. Therefore, a notice under Section 7(2) of the Act was issued on

10.06.1983 and 08.08.1983 and the same was received by the said G.Jayaraj,

S/o.Gopal Nadar. In response to the notice, the said Venugopal Pillai

S/o.Duraiswamy appeared and had given a written statement stating that the

lands in S.No.258/5 to an extent of 27.82 acres is owned by him along with six

others in equal shares. However, during the enquiry, he did not furnish the

documentary evidence in support of his objection. Therefore, the notice under

Section 9(4) of the Act along with statement under Section 9(1) of the Act,

were sent by RPAD on 29.05.1985 calling upon the land owners to raise

objections, if any, for the proposed acquisition of excess vacant land ad-

measuring 27.82 acres. It was duly received by the said Venugopal Pillai on

08.06.1985. In response to the notice, a reply was sent in his letter dated

02.07.1985 stating that the property to an extent of 56,275 sq.mts. in

S.No.258/5 belonged to seven persons. Therefore, he requested to drop the

entire proceedings. By a letter dated 16.07.1985, the enquiry notice was sent to

the said Venugopal Pillai and G.Jayaraj to furnish the documentary evidence in

support of their objections. However, no reply was received and orders under

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005

Section 9(5) of the Act was passed on 30.10.1985 to acquire excess vacant

land ad-measuring 52275 sq.mts in S.No.258/part. The final statement under

Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 29.09.1988 and the same was received

by the said Venugopal Pillai on 12.10.1988. The Notification under Section

11(1) of the Act was issued and published in the Government Gazette in Part-

VI, Section 1, dated 21.08.1991. The notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was

issued on 30.12.1991 to the said Venugopal Pillai with a direction to hand over

the possession of the excess vacant land to the Tahsildar, Ambattur.

Accordingly, the excess vacant land was handed over to the Firka Revenue

Inspector, Ambattur on 18.05.1992. Thereafter, necessary changes had been

carried out in the Revenue Records. Subsequently, the notice under Section

12(7) of the Act was issued on 26.05.1992 and the order under Section 12(6)

of the Act was issued on 03.12.1992 fixing the compensation at Rs.26,150/-

payable of the excess vacant land to the land owner. However, in the letter

dated 18.12.1996, it is stated that he had sold the lands to various persons.

Therefore, the amount was not drawn and paid to the Urban Land Owner.

Hence, it is clear that the petitioners were not served with any notice as

contemplated under the Act.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005

6. It is further clear from the counter affidavit that in fact, the notice

under Section 11(5) of the Act was issued on 30.12.1991 to the erstwhile

owner viz., Venugopal Pillai. From the date of purchase of the subject

properties by the petitioners dated 07.05.1984 and 17.05.1984, they are in

possession and enjoyment of the subject properties. In fact, it is also evident

from the order passed under Section 9(5) of the Act dated 30.10.1985, it is

categorically stated about the sale to various persons. Even then, the

petitioners were not served with any notice atleast under Section 11(5) of the

Act to take possession of the properties. Thus, it is clear that the third

respondent had done all desk work in his office and mutated the Revenue

Records in the name of the authorities concerned without even taking the

physical possession of the subject land.

7. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2019 SCC OnLine

SC 1486 (T.V.Antony -vs- State of Tamil Nadu & others), in which it has been

held as follows:-

“8. Thereafter, notices were issued and sent to the vendor of the appellant under Section 11(5) of the Act directing said Heera to surrender possession of the property in question.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005

However, no notice was served upon the appellant. In reply to the notice under Section 12(7) issued on 09.06.1987, the vendor of the appellant intimated in reply dated 30.06.1987 that she had already sold her interest in favour of the appellant. However, once again a notice was issued by the competent authority directing the vendor of the appellant to appear in person.

9. At that juncture, Writ Petition No.4374 of 1989 was filed by the appellant in the High Court of Judicature at Madras praying inter alia that the respondent be restrained from acquiring the land and dispossessing the appellant from the land in question without taking proceedings under the provisions of the Act. The matter was gone into by a Single Judge of the High Court and by order dated 24.04.1998. The matter was considered as under:

“9. It is true that the petitioner has purchased the said lands only on 13.12.1980 under a registered sale deed from one Selvi A. Heera. He also obtained necessary patta in his favour on 25.03.1981. The Revenue Authorities did not raise any objection and as a matter of fact, transferred the Patta in favour of the petitioner-purchaser in accordance with law. As per definition in Section 3(o) any land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, cannot come within the purview of 'Urban Land'.

Explanation (B) to clause (o) of Section 3 of the Act runs as follows:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005

“3(o) (B):- Land shall not be deemed to be used mainly for the purpose of agriculture, if such land is not entered in the revenue or land records before the commencement of this Act as for the purpose of agriculture.” In this case, it is the definite case of the petitioner that the lands purchased by him from the said A.Heera are agricultural lands, hence the provisions of the Act are not applicable to him. No doubt, as per Section 6 of the Act, if any transfer is effected by the person holding excess vacant urban land, in contravention of the said section such transfer is deemed to be null and void. Taking note of Section 6, inspite of the fact that the vendor of the petitioner has informed the third respondent regarding her sale in favour of the petitioner on 13.12.80 under a registered instrument, the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity. It is true that any transaction in contravention of Section 6 shall be deemed to be null and void. However, before taking possession of the excess land, the concerned Authority has to prepare a draft statement with regard to the vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit.

10. In the light of the scheme of the Act as preferred above, even if there is any contravention of Section 6, the bonafide purchasers have some protections as per the provisions of Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act. In other words, even if there is any contravention of Section 6, a duty is cast

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005

on the competent authority to issue notice to all the persons concerned or all the claimants of the persons interested in such excess land and consider the same in accordance with law. No doubt, it is true that in para 5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the third respondent has informed the purchaser that the sale having been done in violation of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 will be treated as null and void. The petitioner was not given proper and adequate opportunity to put forth his claim in consideration of competent authority with regard to (a) nature of the lands, (b) construction of an industry in terms of Schedule III of the Act.

....Had the third respondent issued notice at the appropriate time as per the provisions of the Act referred to above and heard the petitioner in person, he could have availed the opportunity of putting forth his claim. It is needless to mention that the proper course for the Authority would have been either to accept his claim if it was in order or to reject the same if he has no valid grounds.

12. With regard to the possession of the land in dispute, it is seen that even as early as on 28.03.1989 this Court had granted injunction against the respondents and thereafter the injunction was made absolute after hearing both sides on 9.9.93, hence the injunction is still in force.

13. In the light of what is stated above, I am in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005

agreement with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, accordingly the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

14. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to proceed further under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 only after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his claim. No costs.”

10. Two points emerge from the aforesaid order:

Firstly, a clear finding was rendered with regard to the possession of the land and in para 12 it was observed that the order of injunction passed in favour of the appellant was in force when the matter was disposed of. Secondly, while allowing the writ petition, a positive direction was passed directing the respondents to proceed further under the provisions of the Ceiling Law only after giving adequate opportunity to the appellant to put forth his case.”

8. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioners were not served with

any notice, though the order passed under Section 9(5) of the Act categorically

stated about the purchase of the subject lands. That apart, the physical

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.24882 and 24890 of 2005

possession of the subject lands is well within the petitioners even till date.

Without even issuing notice under Section 11(5) of the Act and notice under

Section 11(6) of the Act, the physical possession could not have been taken

from the petitioners. Therefore, the above judgment is squarely applicable to

the case on hand.

9. As per Section 4(1) of the Repeal Act, the entire proceedings initiated

under the Principal Act viz., the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act, 1978, stands abated, since the possession of the subject land