AYESHA HAQUE REP Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C O M M O N O R D E R While in W.P.No.29056 of 2002, the petitioner prays for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the third respondent dated 11.7.2002, in W.P.No.29057 of 2002, the petitioner seeks for the issue of a Writ of Declaration that the direction of the third respondent in respect of the petitioner's vacant land measuring about 8500 sq. meters as detailed in the writ petition had abated.

(2.) The petitioner contends that she is the owner of the land in dispute which was purchased under the sale deed dated 30.5.1970. In terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Regulations Act (hereinafter called as Act), (now repealed), the petitioner was entitled to retain an extent of 1626 sq. meters and the excess land was determined as 8490 sq. meters. She had applied for exemption for retaining the excess land and in G.O.Ms.No.862 Revenue Department dated 24.5.1990, exemption was granted to the petitioner subject to the condition that the land should be fully utilised for the specified industrial purposes within a period two years and that the land should not be transferred by way of sale etc. The petitioner was also entitled to raise a loan from any financial institution and she was not entitled to sell the land. In the event of not being able to comply with the purpose of exemption, the applicant should surrender the exempted land in lieu of compensation and that the applicant should intimate the Government as regards the progress of the work. In the event of the applicant violating the conditions, the exemption will be withdrawn.

(3.) According to the petitioner, she should have utilised the land for industrial purposes on or before 23.5.1992. However, as she had moved to the United States with her husband and was staying there, she became the non-resident Indian. Though she was trying her best to set up the industrial unit, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 31.10.1995, requiring her to show cause why action should not be pursued, since the exemption condition was not complied with. A reply was sent to the respondent stating the facts relating to the delay in implementing the condition of exemption. Apart from the fact that she had left the Country, reference was also made to a litigation which was pending as against the property in C.S.No.476 of 1986 and that a decree had also been passed against her and steps were being taken to set aside the exparte decree.