V. RANGANAYAKI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to the proceedings, dated 01.03.2005, in Form No.IV under Section 9(4) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (in short 'Act') and quash the same.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the industrial land situated in Koyambedu Village, Egmore -Nungambakkam Taluk, comprised in S. Nos.142, 146, 147, 152 and 153 measuring 62950 sq. mts. and under the Master Plan prepared by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, the said land was classified as industrial land and it was used for industrial purposes for about 50 yeas. While so, after the commencement of the Act, the petitioner along with her brother L.D.Raghavan owned urban lands measuring 139136 sq. mtrs. and, on the date of commencement of the Act, besides the petitioner, the family consisted of her husband, three sons and one daughter. As the land held by the petitioner's family and her brother exceeded the ceiling limits under the Act, they filed a petition on 10.08.1985 before the 1st respondent/Secretary to Government (Revenue Department) seeking to grant exemption from the application of the provisions of the Act.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the Act repealed came into force on 16.06.1999 and under Section -3(1)(b), the exemption order granted under Section 21(1) of the Act was saved and therefore, the action of the authority in invoking the provisions under Section 21(1)(1) is saved. According to him, the Repeal Act will not affect the exempted lands and therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the action initiated by the Government on 22.02.1994. Ultimately, by stating that the exempted lands are saved under the Repeal Act and therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he pleaded for dismissal of the writ petition.