VITTAL COMBINES Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU FORT ST GEORGE CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the property owned by the petitioner firm M/s. Vittal Combines, in S. Nos. 116/1, 2a and 2b, measuring approximately 3450 sq. mtrs. , in the proceedings g. O. Ms. No. 344, Revenue (ULC 2-2) Department, dated 26. 7. 2004 and quash the same. THE brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner is a registered partnership firm. THE property comprised in S. No. 116/1, 116/2a (part) and 2b, bearing Municipal Door no. 55/2, Arcot Road, Chennai, measuring about one acre, belongs to the petitioner firm, having been purchased by a registered sale deed, dated 13. 8. 1969, in document No. 2409 of 1969. As motion picture producers, the petitioner firm has been putting the property to use for their business activities.

(3.) PURSUANT to the order passed by the Supreme Court, the first respondent, by his order, dated 1. 2. 1996, had exempted the land under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act with the condition that the firm should get an approved plan from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and had also imposed certain other conditions. However, the possession of the land continued to be with the petitioner firm, as the State Government had not taken possession of the same. Due to the reason that there was a slump in the business activities of the petitioner firm, the conditions imposed on the petitioner firm could not be fulfilled. Therefore, a representation was submitted by the petitioner firm to the third respondent, who by his letter, dated 30. 7. 2003, had directed the petitioner firm to make personal representation before him. While so, the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, came to be repealed and therefore, the respondents had not taken the possession of the property. Thereafter, it was clear that the respondents could not impose any condition on the petitioner firm with regard to the use of the land in question. However, the first respondent, by an order, dated 26. 7. 2004, had held that the excess vacant land of 3450 sq. mtrs. , was exempted under certain conditions and since the conditions had not been complied with and since the excess vacant land was not used for the purpose for which it was exempted, the request of the petitioner firm to use the land for putting up a star Hotel was being rejected. The first respondent had further held by his order, dated 26. 7. 2004, that the request of the petitioner firm for change of use had been rejected and the first respondent had also ordered that the possession of the excess vacant land be taken by the Government, within 30 days from the date of the order. The parliament, on 22. 3. 1999, had introduced the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 15 of 1999 ). The State government introduced a similar repealing Act, on 16. 6. 1999, as Act No. 20 of 1999, called as the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. According to Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999, all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending, on the date of the commencement of the Act, before any court, Tribunal or authority, shall abate.