Madras High Court
The Special Commissioner Land ... vs E.Vijayakumari on 6 June, 2023
W.A.No.553 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.No.553 of 2021
1. The Special Commissioner Land Reforms
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Assistant Commissioner /
Competent Authority
Urban Land Ceiling
Karneeshwarar Koil Street
Alandur, Chennai.
3. The Tahsildar
Pallavaram, Chennai.
4. The Sub-Registrar
Kundrathur. .. Appellants
Vs.
1. E.Vijayakumari
2. C.Kalai Selvi
3. C.Prabhu
4. K.C.Priya
5. M.S.Elavarasan
6. M.S.Ramamurthy .. Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.553 of 2021
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 12.11.2019 in W.P.No.1659 of 2018.
For the Appellants : Mr.V.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.KM.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr.V.Ramesh
for Mr.T.Thiagarajan
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The present respondents have filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.1659 of 2018 thereby assailing the order of the Assistant
Commissioner / Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, passed
under Section 11(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act.
2. It is the case of the present respondents that a theatre was
constructed in the year 1986 after obtaining permission from the
Executive Officer and the theatre is running since 1986 on the land.
The remaining 3.26 acres of land was sold to three parties as
residential plots after obtaining permission for layout.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.553 of 2021
3. The present respondents contended in the writ petition that as
per the proceedings of the authority dated 26.12.1997, the land in
S.No.122/2B was not registered on the ground that it was acquired
under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1978. The said proceedings was challenged before the
learned Single Judge.
4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and
quashed the impugned order holding that the proceedings initiated by
the respondents of the original writ petition under the Land Ceiling Act
do not culminate in vesting of the land with Government. Hence, there
is no legal impediment for the original writ petitioners / the present
respondents to deal with the subject land in accordance with law. The
said order is assailed in the present writ petition.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that prior to the
repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, possession was already taken by
the appellants in the year 1998 and a receipt to that effect is also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.553 of 2021
placed on record. According to the learned Additional Advocate
General, once possession is taken before the repeal of the Act, the
repeal of the Act would not affect the right of the State. This aspect
has not been considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court
while passing the impugned order. Notices were issued under Section
9. No objection was raised and thereafter, possession was taken by the
present appellants from the present respondents and documents to
that effect is also placed on record.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the original writ petitioners /
present respondents submits that the original writ petitioners were
running a theatre in the writ land. The possession was with the original
writ petitioners. The original writ petitioners also filed an appeal before
the Appellate Authority. A stay was granted by the Appellate Authority
for taking possession. Thereafter, proceedings were dropped by the
Appellate Authority on the ground that the Urban Land Ceiling Act was
repealed. The learned Single Judge has considered the said aspect.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.553 of 2021
7. We have considered the submission that the Urban Land
Ceiling Act stands repealed with effect from 16.06.1999. Admittedly,
the land was not a vacant land. The only contention is that the present
appellants have taken possession of the land before the repeal. In the
documents, it appears as only a paper possession and not a de facto
possession. The Apex Court, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh
vs. Hari Ram reported in 2013 4 SCC 280 has observed that a
possession can be a peaceful possession or forceful dispossession and
the same ought to be in the manner provided under the enactment.
There is nothing on record to show that the theatre of the original
petitioner was taken in possession by the State authorities either
peacefully or forcibly. The learned Single Judge has arrived at the
finding of the fact that the theatre was running at the writ property
and in the year 2003 also, in the appeal proceedings, a stay was
granted in the possession. The Appellate Authority, thereafter disposed
of the proceedings on the ground that the Urban Land Ceiling Act
stands repealed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.553 of 2021
8. The land was not a vacant land. The finding of the fact has
been arrived at by the learned Single Judge on the basis of documents
and statements on record. The judgment does not appear to be
perverse.
9. In the light of that, no case for interference is made out.
Accordingly, the appeal as such is disposed of. There will be no order
as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.2204 of 2021 is closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
06.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl/drm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.553 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(kpl/drm)
W.A.No.553 of 2021
06.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
