Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.P.Rajendran on 5 November, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A.No.2038 of 2021
---------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No. 2038 of 2021
And
C.M.P.No.12996 of 2021
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Principal Commissioner,
Land Reforms,
Ezhilagam Buildings,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ambattur Circle, Ambattur.
4.The Assistant Commissioner,
Urban Land Tax,
Kundrathur and Office at Alandur,
Chennai – 600 016. ...Appellants
Vs.
1.M.P.Rajendran
2.M.G.Sukumaran ...Respondents
PRAYER: The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying
to set aside the order dated 17.10.2019 made in W.P.No.12513 of 2015 and
allow this Writ Appeal.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:16:13 pm )
W.A.No.2038 of 2021
---------------------------
For Appellants : Mr.P.Muthukumar, Addl. Advocate General
Assisted by Mrs.Akila Rajendran,
Govt. Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham
*******
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Under assail is writ order dated 17.10.2019 in W.P.No.12513 of 2015.
2. State preferred present appeal mainly on ground that proceedings
under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act concluded even before Repeal
Act 20 of 1999 on 16.06.1999. Respondents/ writ petitioners are admittedly
subsequent purchasers and therefore they have no right to question validity of
proceedings concluded even before Repeal Act, 20 of 1999. Thus, Writ Court
has committed error in appreciating these facts. Hence, Writ Appeal is to be
considered.
3. Learned counsel for respondents would oppose by stating that
original proceedings initiated under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act
by competent Authority and allotment dated 01.02.1996 made in
G.O.Ms.No.69, Revenue Department was quashed by Tamil Nadu Land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:16:13 pm )
---------------------------
Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal in TRP.No.406 of 1999. Tribunal
remanded the matter back to competent Authority under the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act to proceed under Sections 9 to 11 of the Tamil
Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 in the name of Dhanapal
Naicker and South India Feeds represented by its Managing Partner
Bagyalakshmi Ammal. Competent Authority had not proceeded further.
Therefore, order of appellate Tribunal became final. The matter remanded
remains as it is and question arises whether benefit of Repeal Act is to be
extended to respondents in present Writ Appeal.
4. In this context, writ Court has considered issues and extracted Office
Note dated 10.10.2018 of appellant. Principal Act 24 of 1978 was repealed
vide Repeal Act 20 of 1999 on 16.06.1999. Assistant Commissioner has not
initiated any acquisition proceedings. Subsequently, no action was initiated
against Mr.Dhanapal Naicker, who is said to be original owner. Government
also not preferred an appeal against order of Appellate Tribunal dated
05.12.2000. These facts are reported to Principal Secretary / Commissioner,
(ULC and ULT). Therefore, writ Court concluded that Assistant Commissioner
has not initiated any acquisition proceeding against vendor, pursuant to
remand order passed by Appellate Tribunal. Order passed in TRP. No.406 of
1999 became final and during interregnum period, Repeal Act 20 of 1999
came into force on 16.06.1999. Since no subsequent proceedings are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:16:13 pm )
---------------------------
initiated pursuant to remand order passed by Appellate Tribunal, right of
respondents / subsequent purchasers cannot be taken away.
5. Section 4 of Repeal Act 20 of 1999 provides abatement of legal
proceedings. Accordingly, all proceedings relating to any order made or
purported to be made under Principal Act pending immediately before
commencement of this Act, before any Court, Tribunal or any Authority shall
abate. In present case, remand order was not acted upon and thus entire
proceedings stood abated. Subsequently, benefit of Repeal Act is to be
extended in favour of respondents.
6. Consequently, the writ order impugned dated 17.10.2019 in
W.P.No.12513 of 2015 stands confirmed and Writ Appeal stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
05.11.2025
dsa
Index :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:16:13 pm )
---------------------------
To
1.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Principal Commissioner,
Land Reforms,
Ezhilagam Buildings,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ambattur Circle, Ambattur.
4.The Assistant Commissioner,
Urban Land Tax,
Kundrathur and Office at Alandur,
Chennai – 600 016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:16:13 pm )
---------------------------
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
dsa
05.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:16:13 pm )
