Madras High Court
The Principal Commissioner And vs Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis ( ... on 23 September, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No. 2573 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-09-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No. 2573 of 2025
AND
CMP.No. 20555 of 2025
1.The Principal Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.The Competent Authority
Urban Land Ceiling
Kundrathur Zone,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District. ..Appellants
Vs
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
W.A No. 2573 of 2025
1. Mohammed Ali
2.N. Nabeesha Begum
3.N.Nabeel Ahmed ..Respondents
(R2 & R3 impleaded as respondents vide
Order of this Court dated 23.07.2025)
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 09.07.2018 passed in W.P.No. 28744 of 2003.
For Appellants: Mr. M. Suresh Kumar, AAG
Asst. By Ms.M. Jayanthy, AGP
For Respondents : Ms. Aiswarya S. Nathan – R2 & R3
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
This intra-court appeal assails the order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 28744 of 2003. In the said order, the learned
Single Judge held that the physical possession of the excess land belonging to
the writ petitioner had not been taken by the State till 16.06.2009 under Section
11(5) or 11(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1978”). Consequently, the vesting of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
ownership of the excess land in the State under Section 11(3) of the Act, 1978
would stand effaced, and the ownership of the excess land would stand revived
in favour of the declarant/writ petitioner. The State, therefore, could not disturb
the physical possession of the excess land belonging to the writ petitioner.
2. The land comprised in Survey No. 430/1, Mangadu Village,
Sriperumbudur Taluk, which is the subject matter of the present appeals, had
been declared as excess land under Section 11(3) of the Act, 1978, vesting in
the Government free from all encumbrances. The said order of vesting was
issued on 23.11.1998.
3. As the physical possession of the said land was not taken by the
Government following the order passed under Section 11(3) of the Act, 1978,
the writ petitioner contended that the order passed under Section 11(3) of the
Act, 1978 stood effaced by operation of Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Repeal Act, 1999”). On this basis, the writ petitioner approached this Court in
the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties,
passed the impugned order. Taking exception to the same, the present writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
appeals have been filed by the State.
4. Mr. M. Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the appellant, contended that Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act, 1999 is not
applicable to the subject land, as possession of the land had already been taken
prior to the commencement of the Repeal Act, 1999. This, according to him, is
evident from the entries made in the Revenue Records, which reflect the
substitution of the Government’s name. Therefore, he submitted, the impugned
order of the learned Single Judge is not legally sustainable.
5. In response, Mrs. Aishwarya S. Nathan, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 2 and 3, submitted that the said respondents are purchasers of the
subject land prior to the initiation of proceedings under the Act, 1978 and were
impleaded by virtue of the Court’s order dated 23.07.2025. She further
submitted that the physical possession of the land was never taken by resort to
Section 11(5) or 11(6) of the Act, 1978. Therefore, as lawful possession had not
been taken, the order passed under Section 11(3) of the Act, 1978 stood effaced
by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act, 1999. In support of her submissions,
she placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.P.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar and Ors., ([2025] SCC OnLine
SC 447; Civil Appeal Nos. 4526–4527 of 2024, decided on 27.02.2025).
6. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the
materials placed on record have been duly considered.
7. The State has not produced any material to substantiate that the writ
petitioner had voluntarily surrendered the excess land vested with the
Government under Section 11(3) of the Act, 1978, as contemplated under
Section 11(5) of the Act, 1978. Nor has the State produced any document to
establish that physical possession of the excess land was taken in accordance
with Section 11(6) of the Act, 1978.
8. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation (supra). The Apex Court, at
paragraph 41, laid down the proposition of law governing the issue of
possession in the context of Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Act, 1978, read with
Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999, which reads as follows:
“41. The propositions of law governing the issue of possession
in context with Sections 10(5) and 10(6) respectively of the Act,
1976 read with Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 may be
summed up thus:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
[1] The Repeal Act, 1999 clearly talks about the possession
being taken under Section 10(5) or Section 10(6) of the Act,
1976, as the case may be.
[2] It is a statutory obligation on the part of the competent
authority or the State to take possession strictly as permitted in
law.
[3] In case the possession is purported to have been taken
under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976 the Court is still obliged
to look into whether “taking of such possession” is valid or
invalidated on any of the considerations in law.
[4] The possession envisaged under Section 3 of the Repeal
Act, 1999 is de facto and not de jure only.
[5] The mere vesting of “land declared surplus” under the Act
without resuming “de facto possession” is of no consequence
and the land holder is entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act,
1999.
[6] The requirement of giving notice under sub-sections (5)
and (6) of Section 10 respectively is mandatory. Although the
word “may” has been used therein, yet the word “may” in
both the subsections should be understood as “shall” because
a Court is obliged to decide the consequences that the
legislature intended to follow from the failure to implement the
requirement.
[7] The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of
Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has
been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18th March
1999.
[8] The State has to establish by cogent evidence on record
that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or
surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-
section (6) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-
section (6) of Section 10.”
9. A similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in
W.A. No. 1194 of 2018, as well as by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P. No. 32700 of 2003.
10. In light of the admitted fact that the physical possession of the excess
land has not been taken either under Section 11(5) or Section 11(6) of the Act,
1978, the order passed by the competent authority under Section 11(3) of the
Act, 1978 stands effaced by operation of Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act, 1999.
The learned Single Judge, while interpreting the provisions of the Act, 1978 and
the Repeal Act, 1999, and relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram [(2013) 4 SCC 280], has rightly
passed the impugned order. Furthermore, mere entries in the revenue records
indicating that possession of the excess land was taken cannot be treated as
compliance with Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Act, 1978. Such “paper
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
possession” cannot be construed as lawful possession in the eye of law.
Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of
the learned Single Judge.
11. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(R.S.K. J.,) (H.C. J.,)
23.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
ak
23.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
