NOORJAHAN RAZACK Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Appeal No,905 of 1998 has been preferred by the appellants/writ petitioners against the G.O.Ms.No,2682, dated 07.12.1979, Revenue Department under which exemption from the provisions of Chapter III under Section 21(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 was granted to M/s.Mamidi Manavala Chetty & Co. for retaining an extent of 428 sq. meters in Plot No,59/D, Ambattur Industrial Estate, subject to condition that the exempted land should be utilised for industrial purpose within a period of two yeas. As no valid reason has been put forth by the company for non-utilisation of the exempted land within the stipulated time and further the second respondent herein also has cancelled the allotment, the Government withdrew the exemption by G.O.Ms.No.146, Revenue Department dated 29.01.1990. Challenging this, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No,2124 of 1990 and the same was dismissed on 19.06.1998.

(2.) WRIT Appeal No,906 of 1998 has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 19.06.1998 made in W.P.No,8422 of 2008, dismissing the WRIT petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 22.06.1988 passed by the first respondent herein, cancelling the allotment order dated 19.10.1972, made in favour of M/s.Mamidi Manavala Chetty Co. for violation of terms and conditions of Assignment Deed dated 20.06.1974, i.e., for non-utilisation of plot.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the respective counsel and also the materials made available to us. WE find that consequent to the allotment made, the allottee has completed all requisite formalities to construct the building and commence the industrial activities. However for the reasons beyond its control, there was delay in the construction of the building and the commencement of the industrial activities. It is appears that the second respondent taking into consideration that after the demise of the allottee any development by way of improvements to the plot could not be effected before the change of allotment in the appellants name, it did not cancel the allotment as proposed in the first show cause notice despite no explanation was offered to the show cause notice but required the first appellant to produce the succession certificate that in view one of the rival claimants filing a suit on the file of this Court in the year 1987 for declaration that she is the legal heir, it should not have cancelled the allotment as it would take considerable time for this Court to decide the issue. In the impugned order of cancellation of the allotment of the industrial plot for non utilization, a reference has been made as if the allottee has violated the conditions of the assignment deed but the said deed alleged to be executed by the allottee has not been placed before us. However the second respondent in its counter statement has made a reference as to the execution of the deed of assignment on 20.06.1974. Yet in its subsequent communications dated 03.12.1974 and 03.04.1986 it is stated that the allottee has not executed a deed of assignment as required. The first appellant has specifically stated that no assignment deed has been executed by the allottee. The respondent has not produced the said assignment deed said to be executed by the allottee containing provisions for the cancellation of the allotment in case of non utilization of the plot allotted. In the absence of such an authority for the cancelation, the cancellation made is not valid. It is to be noted that the very object of the second respondent is to promote small scale industries in the State of Tamil Nadu and the allottee by delaying the construction of the building and non utilization of the plot has not committed any serious violation of the allotment such as transfer/subletting or use of the plot for unauthorized purposes warranting cancellation of the allotment. The allottee is in possession of the plot for more than 17 years on the date of cancellation of the allotment after the payment of the entire cost of the plot. it is also pertinent to note that it was brought to the notice of the court by the counsel for the appellants at the time of final hearing of the writ petitions about the abatement of the suit filed by the said Rajalakshmi and demise of Kalavathy who were the rival claimants to the industrial plot in question. If there is any other claimants for the plot in question, they would have come forward with the claim for transfer of the plot in their name but also questioned and validity of the cancellation of the allotment made. It is therefore evident that the first appellant alone is entitled to have the plot transferred in her name. In the absence of the second respondent placing the court any material to show that it is entitled to cancel the allotment for non utilization of the plot allotted and the extenuating circumstances as stated supra, the cancellation of the allotment is arbitrary and unreasonable. The second respondent having postponed the threatened act of cancellation of the allotment for 6 years after coming know about the demise of the allottee, it should not have abruptly cancelled the allotment without giving the appellant reasonable opportunity to establish her right of succession to her husband's plot in question. Besides, we find that the learned Single Judge without consideration of all the relevant materials available on record has passed the impugned orders warranting our interference in this appeal. Hence the order of the second respondent dated 22.06.1988 is liable to be quashed and the consequential order passed by the Revenue Authority in G.O.Ms.No.146,Revenue Department, dated 29.01.1990 is also liable to be quashed. Accordingly the said cancellation order dated 22.06.1988 and the consequential orders passed by the Revenue Authority in G.O.Ms.No.146, Revenue Department, dated 29.01.1990 are quashed and the writ appeals are allowed.