ABDULLAH GLUE COMPANY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed under Art. 226 of the constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of certiorari fied mandamus directing the first respondent to grant exemption under Sec. 21 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, in respect of the land in S. No. 95/ 2, Pammal Village, within the Madras Urban Agglomeration category I in the possession of the petitioner, after calling for the records connected with the letter (Ms) No. 1382, dated 23. 8. 1989 of the first respondent and quash the same.

(2.) THE brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition can be stated as follows: One Sakhibai Khiyaram became the owner of 60 grounds of land ins. No. 95/2, aammal Village by a settlement deed dated 26. 5. 1969. THE petitioner-firm was a tenant in respect of the said 60 grounds of land from 1957 under one A. Mohammed Ghouse. It is stated that there was an ancient shed on the land and all the superstructure housing the tannery, factory unit was constructed by the petitioner. Sakhibai Khiyara m entered into an agreement of sale on 9. 2. 1975 fixing a price of Rs. 1 ,12,500. THE petitioner purchased the said land of 60 grounds on 22. 6. 1979 and ll :8. 1979andfiledastatement under Sec. 7 (1) and also a separate application before the first respondent under Sec. 21 for exemption of the excess land of about 35 grounds. Prior to that Sakhibai Khiyaram filed a statement under Sec7 (l) of the Act. THE assistant Commissioner (U. L. T.), Tambaram at Saidapet by notice dated 16. 8. 1979 summoned the quondam owner and the petitioner, for enquiry, into the violation of Sec. 6 of the Act. By the Government's letter dated 17. 2. 1981 the petitioner was informed that the exemption sought for was rejected as the land was purchased in contravention of Sec. 6 of the Act and a similar order dated 23. 2. 1981 was sent to the quondam owner. Sakhibai Khiyaram filed a reconsideration application on 13. 3. 1981 which was rejected by the Governmenton25. 3. 1981. Again on 17. 7. 1981 the petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 21 of the Act through his counsel for exempting the land. That was also rejected. He filed a representation before the Honourable Minister for Revenue, Government of Tamil Nadu , on 17. 8. 1981 invoking the combined benevolence in Sec. 21 (l) (a) and (b) for exempting the land. By the impugned letter, the Government rejected the petitioner' s application for exemption. Further, the second respondent passed an order dated 21. 9. 1989 under Sec. 9 (5) in respect of Sakhibai Khiyaram's returns under Sec. 7 (l) and fixed an extent of 11,469 sq. mt. as excess to be acquired. Only in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. THE main grievance of the writ petitioner is that even though the sale is hit by Sec. 6 of the Act, yet by virtue of his possession and enjoyment as a tenant for 20 years, he has got every locus standi to seek exemption as a person who is holding the said land and the impugned order which shows that that the petitioner has no locus standi is not sustainable in law and on that ground alone, the same has to be quashed and the matter should be remitted back to the Government to consider the question as to whether the petitioner is eligible for exemption as a lessee of the premises who is running an industry in tannery.