UMAYAL RAMANATHAN Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner in this writ petition seeks the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent herein relating to its letter in Ref:No. 21255/T-1/79-7, dt.15.12.1979 and Letter No 16267/T-1/80-1, dt.7.6.1980 and quash the said two orders and consequently to direct the first respondent to consider and deal with the application of the petitioner for exemption afresh in accordance with law.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner would state that R.S.No.1/12 in Block No.1 in Puraswalkam village in Madras Urban agglomeration (Door No. 1076, Poonamallee High Road, Madras-84), belongs to her absolutely and the said property is located in a residential area, near the Junction of Poonamallee High Road and Ritherdon Road. She is the only daughter of her father. Dr.R.M. Algappa Chettiar, a well known Philanthropist, Educationalist and INdustrialist. She and her husband constituting the family as defined in the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 24 of 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the act) with their only son who is married and has no other property. She is the Correspondent of the Educational INstitutions run in the name of her late father under a trust. After the advent of the act she submitted her return to the third respondent the competent authority under the act on 13.12.1978 as required and followed it up by an application for exemption of excess land if any from the provisions of the act setting out the necessity of keeping the entire extent in tact in her occupation in view of her social standing and status and also bringing to the notice of the authority that she has only one son who is married and has no property of his own. IN the honest belief that her application would be granted and that the excess land, if any, would be only negligible, the petitioner proceeded with her plan for construction of multi-storeyed flats in the property pursuant to the plan. She applied to the Corporation for approval of the plan. The Corporation required the petitioner to produce a certificate from the competent authorities under the act about the actual extent of excess land if any, so that the plan to be approved could be confined to the limits of extent permissible under the act. The petitioner moved the first respondent on 24.4.1979 to determine the excess land, if any in the property in question and issue a certificate as required by the Corporation. The Officials of the Urban Land Ceiling Department inspected the property and determined the excess extent of land to be 62 sq.metres, and the second respondent passed an order to that effect on 26.5.1979 and communicated the same to the petitioner, on the strength of which the petitioner re-submitted her application for sanction of the plan to the corporation and for a building permit. The Corporation approved the plan by its order dated 28.7.1979. Thereafter while she proceeded with the construction of residential flats in the property, and was half way through the said construction the second respondent issued proceedings in Letter No. 12/29418/79, dt.29.9.1979, wherein the second respondent stated that the excess land in the possession of the petitioner was 312 sq.metres and not 61 sq.metres as earlier determined and that she should not proceed with the construction till her application for exemption was disposed of by the Department.

(3.) MR.A.R.Lakshmanan learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the orders now impugned by the petitioner are not speaking orders and merely saying that the request of the petitioner could not be complied with and informing the result as such, would not satisfy the requirements of an order wherein it is necessary that all the reasons for the rejection must be disclosed. In the instant case the impugned order dated 15.12.1979 issued by the Revenue secretariat of the Government does not give the reasons for the rejection, but only states that in respect of the excess vacant land of 312 sq.metres in R.S.No.1/12 the matter had been carefully examined by the Government and they saw no grounds to comply with the request of the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the entire proceedings which culminated in the rejection of the petition'request for exemption are vitiated in that no speaking order had been pronounced by the authorities concerned after duly considering the merits and demerits of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, especially when the petitioner has stated that she has only one married son who is also living with her and, taking into account her status and the circumstances of . her family, the exemption prayed for by the petitioner has to be necessarily granted to her. In support of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the decision in MAHABIR PRASAD v. STATE OF U.P., (1971)1 S.C.J. 256: (1971)1 S.C.R. 201: A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1302, wherein it has been held that recording of reasons in support of a decision by a quasi judicial authority is obligatory as it ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on ground of policy or expediency and that the necessity to record reasons is greater if the order is subject to appeal. It has further been held that decision as could be seen from the observations of the Supreme Court in para 6 of the report which run as follows: