C RAM MOHAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer:- These Writ Petitions are filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Respondents especially the proceedings under Section 9(5) in Ref.SR.931/96 dated 10.4.1997, Statement under Sec.10(1) in Ref.Rc.2029/98/D dated 24.7.1998 and Notice under Section 11(5) in Ref.Rc.2029/99/D dated 30.4.1999 of the 3rd Respondent in respect of the lands in S.Nos.101/1, 101/2, 102, 103/1A in Voyalanallur Village, Poonamallee Taluk and quash the same and to direct the Respondents to treat the land as falling outside the provisions of the Act 24/1978 by virtue of Section 4 of the Act 20 of 1999.) 1. The case of the Petitioners is as follows:- The lands comprised in S.Nos.101/1, 101/2, 102, 103/1A in Voyalanallur Village, Poonamallee Taluk to an extent of 16 acres were purchased by the Petitioners and one Sheshadri under two sale deeds both dated 29.7.1992. The said Seshadri executed a release deed in favour of the Petitioners, releasing his right, title and interest over the land covered by the said sale deeds. The Petitioners started using a portion of the said lands for manufacture of bricks under the brand name M/s. Mohan Brick Industries and one of the Petitioners is an Architect and the 3rd Petitioner is a building contractor. Even though a small portion of the said lands was used for manufacture of bricks, the remaining larger extent of lands were used only for agricultural purposes. The Respondents passed an order under Section 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (herein after referred to as the Act) dated 10.4.1997 allowing an extent of 500 sq.metres towards family entitlement and an extent of 36,600 sq.metres comprised in S.Nos.101/1, 2, 102 and 103/1A was found excess; that the 3rd Respondent proceeded under Section 10(1) and no notice under Section 11(5) of the Act have been served, but it was alleged by the Respondents that it was served by way of affixture and later possession was taken over on 14.6.1999 from the Petitioners. The Petitioners are in possession all along, which is evidenced from the Adangal extracts issued by the Revenue Officials concerned for Fasli 1409 and 1410 and never part with possession at any time. In view of the facts that the Petitioner are in continuous possession and that the Respondents did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the said Act and Rules, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

(2.) THE case of the Respondents is that notice dated 14.2.1996 under Section 7(2) of the Act was served on the Petitioners on 18.2.1996 and the order under Section 9(5) of the Act rejecting the objection of the Petitioner was also served on the Petitioners by way of affixture and that the final statement under Section 10(1) was made on 24.7.1998, which was also served on the Petitioners and that the notice under Section 11(5) dated 30.4.1999 was also served on the Petitioners by way of affixture and that after the period of 30 days provided to surrender possession, the Respondents took possession of the said lands on 14.6.1999 from the Petitioners well prior to the date of introduction of the Repeal Act i.e. 16.6.1999.

(3.) THIS court carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the material records placed.