Madras High Court
Mr.Chandran vs The Special Commissioner & on 24 February, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.18997 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition No.15858 of 2007
and MP.Nos.1, 2 of 2007 & MP.No.1 of 2010
Mr.Chandran
S/o.Mr.Arumugam
Rep.by his Power Agent
Mr.Balaji …. Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Special Commissioner &
Commissioner Land Reforms
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2.The Assistant Commissioner/U.L.T
Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling)
Ambattur, E.V.R. Buildings
Aminjikarai, Chennai.
3.The Tahsildar
Ambattur Taluk
Ambattur, Chennai-55. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
respondents, especially the order of the second respondent dated 30.4.97 vide
Na.Ka.3402/96/A1and Notice dated 25.9.98 vide 3402/96/A2 under Section 11(5) of
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18997 of 2015
the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, in respect of lands in
Survey Nos.42/1A, 37/4A, 37/4b and 43/1A4 measuring 3950 sq.mts. of Pandeswaram
Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District and quash the same and treat the
proceedings as abated under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling &
Regulation) Act, 1978, in respect of lands in Survey No.37/2A1B and 37/3B
measuring 3900 sq.mts of Pandeswaram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District
and quash the same, and treat the proceedings as abated under Section 4 of the
Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, (Act 20 of 1999), so as to
enable the third respondent to correct the entries in their records.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr. A.Selvendran
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second
respondent dated 30.04.97 issued under Section 9(5) and notice dated 25.09.1998
issued under Section 11(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1978 [hereinafter 'said Act' for brevity] and to treat the proceedings as abated
under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, (Act
20 of 1999) [for brevity 'Repeal Act'].
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the Power Agent of one Arumugam,
who is the owner of the property. Proceedings were initiated under the Act and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
orders passed by the second respondent and the notice issued to the petitioner, have
been put to challenge in the present writ petition.
3. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter
affidavit that Chandran, the petitioner herein is the owner of lands in various survey
numbers in Pandeswaram village. The said Chandran did not file any return under
Section 7(1) of the Act, for the urban lands owned by him. Hence, notice was issued
by the second respondent under Section 7(2) of the Act on 06.08.1996, directing the
owner to file necessary statement under Section 7(1) of the Act. This notice was
received by the petitioner and there was no reply for the notice. Thereafter, a draft
statement under Section 9(1) along with notice under Section 9(4) of the Act was
issued on 30.10.1996, allowing 500 sq.mtrs. as petitioner's entitlement area and
bringing the excess vacant land available as 3900 sq.mtrs. The owner of the land was
directed to submit his objections. Thereafter, the draft statement under Section 9(1)
r/w. 9(4) was served on one Viswanathan, Son of said Chandran. Since no objections
were received, the land was inspected by the concerned authority, who found the land
to be vacant. In the absence of objections, orders were issued under Section 9(5) of
the Act through proceedings dated 30.04.1997, determining the excess vacant land
available as 3900 sq.mtrs., after allowing 500 sq.mtrs. of land towards petitioner's
entitlement. These notices were said to have been received by one Kamal, who is the
son of the urban land owner. Even thereafter, no objections were received from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
land owner, hence, a notification under Section 11(1) was issued on 01.04.1998 and it
was published in the Gazette on 20.05.1998. Thereafter, a notification under Section
11(3) vesting the land with the Government was issued and it was published in the
Gazette on 30.07.1998. This was followed with a notice under Section 11(5) of the Act
dated 30.08.1998, directing the urban land owner to surrender possession of the
excess land. Since the land owner failed to hand over possession, the possession of
excess lands was taken over on 15.06.1999 and it was handed over to the revenue
authorities.
4. In the light of the above stand taken by the respondents, they have sought
for dismissal of this petition.
5.Heard Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents.
6. Various issues were raised by the counsel for the petitioner questioning the
proceedings of the second respondent. It is not necessary for this Court to go into all
the issues since this Court finds that the possession was not taken in line with Section
11(5) of the Act r/w. Rule 8 of 1978 Rules. If possession has not been taken as
mandated, the Repeal Act will automatically come into play.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. This Court had the advantage of going through the original files that were
submitted in the Court today. Even though the notice under Section 11(5) is available,
there is absolutely no indication that this notice was served on the owner of the
property.
8. The land in question is a vacant site. Hence, the notice must first be sent by
registered post to the owner/occupier, and inspite of sending such notice, no objection
having been received, the authorities can proceed further. For resorting to affixture, it
is a condition precedent that a notice must first be sent through registered post to the
owner of the property. If that step has not been taken, mere affixture of notice on the
vacant site, pales into insignificance. Once the possession is not taken as mandated
under Section 11(5) of the Act, it will not be taken as a valid taking over of the
possession in the eye of law. Hence, the moment the Repeal Act comes into force, the
proceeding itself abates. The law on this issue is too well settled by a catena of
judgments passed by this Court and the Apex Court.
9. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to interfere with
the proceedings of the second respondent on the simple ground that the possession
was not validly taken by following the procedure under Section 11(5) r/w. Rule 8 of
the Rules and therefore, the benefit of the Repeal Act must enure in favour of the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. In the light of interfering with
the proceedings of the second respondent, the revenue records have to be mutated in
the name of the petitioner by the concerned authority namely, the second respondent-
Tahsildar, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed
24.02.2025
Index : Yes/No
NCS : Yes/No
KP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Special Commissioner &
Commissioner Land Reforms
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2.The Assistant Commissioner/U.L.T
Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling)
Ambattur, E.V.R. Buildings
Aminjikarai, Chennai.
3.The Tahsildar
Ambattur Taluk
Ambattur, Chennai-55.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
KP
Writ Petition No.15858 of 2007
24.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
