GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. MECCA PRIME TANNERY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since, in all these writ appeals, which are 27 in number, a common question of interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 and the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999 has to be answered, they have been heard together and answered by this common judgment. All these appeals arose out of separate judgements delivered by learned single Judges in various writ petitions filed by aggrieved land owners. Almost all the writ petitions have been allowed mainly on the ground that physical possession of the lands continued with the land owners or the persons claiming through them. The factual details of each case have been discussed in the latter part of this judgment.

(2.) The State, which is the appellant in all but three appeals, has assailed the impugned judgments rendered by the writ courts as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Mr. S. Gomathinayagam, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant-State advanced elaborate arguments, the crux of which is summarised hereunder :-

(3.) In reply, Mr. V. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/land owners in W.A. Nos.587 of 2009, 759, 760 & 988 of 2011, 1146, 1152, 1153, 1155 and 1157 of 2012 submitted that the question of possession is one of fact and it shall be borne out by records and documents. The parent Act prescribes the procedure for taking possession, and unlike the Land Acquisition Act, where the land vests with the Government only on taking physical possession thereof under Section 16 of the said Act, the Ceiling Act contemplates voluntary surrender of excess vacant land by person in possession of land'. Voluntary surrender should be supported by independent documents. If not voluntarily surrendered under Section 11(5), there should be some material on record to suggest that the competent authority had resorted to sub-section (6) of Section 11.