T AZIZUDDIN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife of the petitioner late Smt. Mahboob Bi purchased agricultural lands of an extent of 2. 05 acres comprised in S. F. No. 387/1 in Zamin Pallavam village by sale deed dated 5. 2. 1962. An extent of 1750 sq. meters of the said land was declared surplus on 28. 05. 1983 under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. In terms of Section 11 (3) of the said Act, the excess land absolutely vested with the State Government free from all encumbrances. The competent authority (ULT) by order dated 12. 05. 1988, fixed the compensation payable at Rs. 17,500/ -. A Writ Petition was filed in W. P. No. 5630 of 1989, questioning the orders passed by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 1375 Revenue dated 5. 6. 1980. Determining the zonal value. The said Writ Petition came to be allowed on 10. 2. 1995, with a direction to the respondents to hear the petitioners therein fully regarding the fixation of the amount. Questioning the said order, a Writ Appeal was filed in W. A. No. 613/1995 which was also dismissed on 19. 9. 2001.

(2.) IN the mean time, after the orders in Writ Petition and before the Writ Appeal was disposed of, the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 20/1999) came to be enacted. By virtue of the said Act, the proceedings that were pending and no possession was taken were deemed abated. On the claim that possession was not taken, not only on the date (16. 6. 1999) when the Repealing Act came into force but even today, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present Writ Petition for a direction to the respondents to restore the land in question to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Act 20 of 1999.

(3.) MR. M. Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was not issued with Notice under Section 11 (5) of the Act before possession was taken, that apart factually no physical possession was taken. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the Repealing Act. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the Writ Petition must be allowed.