K.SUBBULAKSHMI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third Respondent is a partnership firm (the Partnership Firm), whose lands were conveyed to the fourth Respondent on 03.08.2007. The Partnership Firm was reconstituted from time to time. According to the Petitioner, when the Partnership Firm was reconstituted by Partnership Deed dated 01.01.1993, a limited company called V.K.K.Hotels Pvt.Ltd. had a 30% share in the profits and losses of the Partnership Firm, and the Petitioner held 50% of the paid-up share capital of the said company. By a Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1994, the Partnership Firm was unlawfully reconstituted and V.K.K. Hotels Private Limited was shown as having retired from the Partnership Firm with effect from 31.03.1994. The sale of the lands took place thereafter at a throwaway price in order to defraud the Petitioner of her right in the property. In these facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that the said sale violates exemption conditions under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the TN Urban Land Ceiling Act) and, on that basis, the Petitioner prays for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first Respondent to take action against the third and fourth Respondents.

(2.) I heard the learned senior counsel, Mr.Silambanan, on behalf of the Petitioner; Mr.G.K.Muthukumar, the learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 5; Mr.T.M.Pappaiah, the learned Special Government Pleader for the second Respondent; and Mr.S.Raghunathan, the learned counsel for Respondent 4.

(3.) The learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the lands in question were the subject matter of an exemption order in G.O.Ms.No.1711, Revenue Department, dated 12.07.1980, which prohibited the transfer of the lands by way of sale, gift, mortgage, lease or otherwise. The only exception as regards the said prohibition on alienation was in respect of mortgages in favour of a lender. Therefore, the sale of the lands by the Partnership Firm to the fourth Respondent was clearly in violation of the exemption conditions. The next submission of the learned senior counsel was that the Petitioner had approached this Court earlier upon coming to know that the Partnership Firm was proposing to alienate the property. By order dated 25.04.2007, in W.P.No.15244 of 2007, this Court directed the second Respondent herein to consider the objections dated 19.04.2007 of the Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law, including the Registration Act, 1908, if any document is presented for registration in respect of the property in dispute. In spite of the said order dated 25.04.2007, he submits that the property in question was alienated in favour of the fourth Respondent. As regards the locus standi of the Petitioner, the learned senior counsel referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Railway Board and Others v. Mrs.Chandrima Das and Others , 2000 2 SCC 465 (Chandrima Das) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the right of a lawyer to claim compensation on behalf of the rape victim. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that public law remedies are wide enough to encompass not only infringement of fundamental rights but also proceedings for the enforcement of statutory duties. On this basis, he submits that the Petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to enforce statutory obligations under the TN Urban Land Ceiling Act, as saved by Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (the Repeal Act).