Madras High Court
Mts Raghavan (Deceased) vs The Special Commissioner And on 5 January, 2024
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
WA No.1713 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.01.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
WA No.1713 of 2021
MTS Raghavan (Deceased)
Ms.Amrit Malini Raghavan
(Substituted as L.R. as per order
dated 2.3.2015 in MP.No.1/2015
in WP.No.9103/2009) .. Appellant
-vs-
1. The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of ULC & ULT,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2. The Principal Secretary,
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.01.2020
passed in W.P.No.9103 of 2009.
For the Appellant : Mr.N.Viswanathan
For the Respondents : Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath
Govt. Advocate
*****
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1713 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.N.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath, learned Government Advocate
for the respondents.
2. The appellant/original petitioner has filed the writ petition
challenging the order dated 16.03.2009 and seeking release of the
property of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner claimed to be the owner of S.No.339/1A
measuring 3804 sq. meters in Velacherry Village. The land to the
extent of 2300 sq. meters in the said village was acquired under the
Tamil Nadu Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. It was the case
of the petitioner that though the said land was acquired, the
possession of the said land was never handed over to the State. As
per Section 3(1)(a) read with Section 4 of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999,
if the possession of the property remains with the land owner, then
the proceedings would lapse and the property would be free from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
encumbrances and the entire acquisition proceedings would stand
vitiated. The first respondent, on 23.10.2008, dropped the
proceedings. Subsequently, the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of
Land Reforms, the second respondent, on 16.03.2009 observed that
the Repeal Act would not affect the land vested with the Government
and the possession of the land has been handed over to the Revenue
Department. Hence, the endorsement issued was cancelled. The
said order was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition. The
same is negatived.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant and his predecessor were in possession of the property
throughout. Under the Tamil Nadu Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1978, though an area of 2304 sq. meters was acquired, the actual
physical possession was not handed over to the Department. Inter
alia, upon the Repeal Act, the land would stand reverted to the
petitioner free from encumbrances. The relevant aspect would be
handing over of the physical possession. The physical possession
was with the original owner and if the physical possession has not
been taken over, then, advantage of the Repeal Act would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
available to the appellant/original petitioner. Reliance is placed by
the learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Hari
Ram reported in 2013 (4) SCC 280 and also several judgments of
this Court, to buttress his submission that in view of the Repeal Act,
if possession has not been taken by the authorities, then the
proceedings would lapse and the appellant/petitioner would be
entitled for the said land.
5. The learned counsel further submits that the order dated
16.03.2009 is passed without notice to the appellant violating the
principles of natural justice.
6. We have considered the submissions. The prima donna
consideration would be the possession of the property. It would
appear that the father of the petitioner had, on 30.04.1979, accepted
that he has filed the return regarding the property held by him. In
the said statement, he accepted that he is eligible to retain 1500 sq.
meters of the land as per the Act, 1978 and is willing to surrender the
surplus land in S.No.339 of Velacherry Village and willing to receive
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the compensation to be fixed by the Government provided the
compensation is adequate and reasonable. It is not disputed that the
petitioner's father had accepted the compensation. The land to an
extent of 2304 sq. meters was declared as surplus land. It further
appears that the petitioner and his father were not present in the
house, as such the possession was taken over by the concerned
revenue officer on 26.02.1981. Endorsement to that effect is
available in the original file. It further appears that possession was
handed over to the Revenue Department and the Revenue
Department, in turn, handed over the possession to the Social
Welfare department under G.O.Ms.No.1466, Revenue Department,
dated 26.08.1982.
7. It would also further appear that the land was encroached
upon by some persons, namely, Ramasamy and others who had filed
a writ petition. The appellant admits that he is not in possession and
the encroachers were in possession of the property.
8. The learned Single Judge has observed that the entire
compensation amount was received by the land owner. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
possession was taken over by the State and subsequently handed
over to the Social Welfare Department and a Government Order also
was issued. The learned Single Judge, after examination of the
record, has observed about the possession being taken over so also
the land being handed over to the Social Welfare Department.
9. The learned Single Judge also observed that after the
statement under Section 9(1), notice under Section 9(4) was issued
to the urban land owner and final notice under Section 10(1) of the
Act was also issued to the land owner on 12.07.1979. The land
owner also acknowledged the said notice on 20.07.1979. After the
issuance of notification under Sections 11(1), 11(3) and notice under
Section 11(5), the land has been handed over to the Revenue
Department on 26.02.1981. The land owner has received the
compensation under Section 12(6) of the Act upto 15 instalments.
10. All these facts would show that the appellant/writ petitioner
was never in possession of the property on the relevant date. In light
of that, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The writ appeal as such is disposed of. There shall be no order
as to costs.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
05.01.2024
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sra
To
1. The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of ULC & ULT,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2. The Principal Secretary,
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
(sra)
05.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
