SPEEDLINE AGENCIES Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 4th respondent in this appeal is the owner of T.S. Nos. 1356 and 1357 in Puliankulam village, Coimbatore District. T.S. No. 1356 comprises of an extent of 11,472 sq. mts. out of which an extent of 2579 sq. mts. is vacant. In T.S. No. 1357 4th respondent owns 55,579 sq. mts. out of which an extent of 3,536 sq. mts. lies vacant. 4th respondent is engaged in the business of coffee roasting, grinding and marketing in wholesale and in retail. It is also dealing with grade packing and marketing of tea. The appellant herein took on lease the entire extent owned by 4th respondent in T.S. No. 1357 with buildings thereon for a period of five years from 1.10.1965. The lease was extended for a further period of five years and ultimately it came to an end on 30.9.1980.

(2.) UNDER the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?) 4th respondent submitted a return under S. 7 of the Act on 13.9.1978. Even before submitting the return, 4th respondent filed an application on 7.9.1978 under S.21 of the Act for exemption of excess land from the provisions of the Act. The appellant applied for assignment of the excess vacant land in its favour by the Government. The application for exemption as well as the appellant's request for assignment were considered by the Government and the Commissioner for Land Reforms made a report in his letter No. H. 342668/78 dated 22.5.1981 addressed to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9. The Commissioner has recommended in that letter that out of the total extent of vacant land of 3.115 sq. mts. over and above the ceiling limit, an extent of 1,818 sq. mts. can be allowed to be retained by the 4th respondent and the remaining extent of 1,297 sq. mts. in T.S. No. 1357 can be declared as excess and acquired under the provisions of the Act. The Government considered the report as well as the applications and passed an order on 4.1.1981 in G.O.Ms. No. 2900 exempting the excess vacant land of 1,815 sq. mts. out of the total extent of excess vacant land of 3,115 sq. mts. Thereafter, the 4th respondent made representations on 9.12.1981, 29.12.1981 and 20.2.1982 urging to reconsider the order made by it and grant exemption for the entire excess land of 3.115 sq. mts. At the same time, the appellant was also pursuing his application for assignment. The Assistant Commissioner for Urban Lands had advised the appellant to apply for assignment under S.24 of the Act read with R. 23 of the Rules after declaration of the excess vacant land under Ss. 9 to 11 of the Act. But, the appellant was repeatedly urging the authorities to assign the excess land in its favour even before such declaration was made.

(3.) PER contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the 4th respondent that the right to seek an assignment of land will arise in any person only after the excess land is declared by the Government under S. 10 of the Act. It is submitted that only when a final statement is published under S. 10 of the Act, the excess land is declared and a right under S. 24(4) of the Act will arise only after such Declaration. It is therefore, submitted that the appellant has no locus standi to seek assignment of the land in his possession before such Declaration is made. It is also argued that the power of exemption under S.21 of the Act is a continuing power and it can be exercised any number of times. It is submitted that it is not a case of reviewing the earlier order, but to consider the request for grant of exemption by the Government under S. 21 of the Act and to pass another order under that section. It is, therefore, submitted that the order of the learned single Judge does not warrant any interference.