OMANA GEORGE Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF URBAN LAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of declaration declaring that the proceedings taken by the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 in respect of Survey No. 269/1A and 269/2 of Thiruneermalai Village formerly within Saidapet Taluk, now within Tambaram Taluk, measuring an extent of 7150 sq. meters stand abated as per section order of the Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 20 of 1999). Admittedly, the first respondent (competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978) effected a declaration under section 11(3) of the said Act holding an extent of 7150 sq. meters comprised in Survey No. 269/1A and 269/2 of Thiruneermalai village to be excess vacant land in the hands of one Balaraman. It is also not in dispute that the said Balaraman was the owner of the said property on the advent of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 and hence the assessment of the above said vacant land to be excess vacant land in the hands of the said Balaraman could not be found fault with.

(2.) On the other hand, the petitioner, who has chosen to purchase the said property from the said Balaraman under a sale deed dated 21.11.1985 registered as document No. 548/1986 in the office of Sub Registrar, Polavaram, contends that despite the fact that the sale deed executed by Balaraman in favour of the petitioner would not be valid as against the government and the declaration made under section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 had the deeming effect of vesting the property with the government, the mere deemed vesting of the property with the government was not enough to bring the case within the exemption clause found in section 3 of the Repeal Act (Act 20 of 1999) to save the proceedings from the mischief of being lapsed under section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 20 of 1999) and that for attracting the exemption under section 3 of the Repeal Act, possession of the property should have been taken as per the procedure contemplated in the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that no such possession was taken and only a record had been created in the office of the respondents as if possession was delivered to the Revenue Department and such a paper delivery, without actual possession being taken in accordance with Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978, the savings provision under section 3 of the Repeal Act would not get attracted.

(3.) Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents would contend that possession of the land was taken prior to the Repeal Act coming into force by following the procedure contemplated in the main act, namely Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 and that hence the proceedings would not stand abated under section 4 of the Repeal Act as it is exempted under section 3 of the Repeal Act (Act 20 of 1999). Learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the erstwhile owner of the urban land, namely Balaraman did not respond to the notices sent under section 7(2) and the subsequent notices, which resulted in the issuance of publication of the declaration under section 11(3) declaring the land concerned in this writ petition to be excess extent of vacant urban land held by the said Balaraman; that the purchase made by the petitioner being one made subsequent to the date of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 coming into force was void as against the government and that therefore, the notice prior to the declaration under section 11(3) to the said Balaraman was enough to justify the declaration.