T AZHIZUDDIN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Appeal against the order dated 24.03.2005 passed in WRIT Petition No.14368 of 2002 on the file of this Court.) The wife of the first appellant was the owner of an extent of 2.05 acres of agricultural land comprised in S.F.No,387/1 in Zamin Pallavaram Village. We are concerned herewith an extent of 1750 sq.mts., which were declared surplus on 28.05.1983 under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The question is, whether the appellants can claim to be still in possession of the lands to take advantage of the Repeal Act, 20 of 1999, by which, the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was repealed.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge was not convinced that possession was still with the owner and therefore, dismissed the writ petition. Against that the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) THE learned Special Government Pleader submitted that this is a case, where possession had been taken and the correspondence between the owner and the State Government would also indicate that there have been earlier proceedings, which indicate that the possession had been taken and if it was taken in 1985, it is not open to the land owner to approach this court in 2002 to take advantage of the Repeal Act. THE learned Special Government Pleader submitted that it is not as if the Government had not taken steps to pay the compensation. After the decision of the Writ Appeal No,613 of 1995 was passed, the Government had issued notice to the land owner and in response to that, the appellant had sought for time and thereafter, wrote to the Government that in view of the Repeal Act, all proceedings abated and had approached this Court by way of this writ petition. THErefore, the Government could not proceed further in the matter of awarding compensation. THE learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that the Act does not use the words "physical possession". All that has to be done by the Government after the vesting under Section 11(3) of the Act, is to serve notice on the land owner and take possession. It is submitted that Section 11(6) of the Act, uses the words "police force", but, use of police force is not a must in all cases. Where the land owner refuses to comply with the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act, police force is used only if it is necessary. THErefore, the mere fact that the Government did not use police force to take possession would not mean that the possession was not taken.