D.C.MANGALRAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records pertaining to the issue of the impugned order of the 2 nd respondent, in R.C.No.C.5424/88 dt. 23.10.2003 served on the petitioner on 07.01.2004 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequently forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from in any manner interfering with the petitioner's lawful possession of the lands comprised in S.No.38/1, 41 and 42 etc., of an extent of 21 acres 50 cents, at Ayanambakkam Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was owning about 21.5 acres of agriculture lands comprised in S.Nos.38/1, 41 and 42, Ayanambakkam Village, used for brick works. The lands are agricultural in nature and was used for brick industry purpose. The subject lands do not fall under the purview of the definition of urban land and the same is evident from the revenue records. The petitioner was in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the subject lands for the past several decades. The petitioner has also applied for exemption on 30.09.1983 and 06.09.1989. The 3rd respondent without considering the case on merits rejected the application for exemption under Section 21 of Tamilnadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1978. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13035 of 1991 and this Court. This Court while entertaining the writ petition by its order dated 24.12.1991 granted interim stay and restrained the respondents from interfering with the lawful possession of the subject lands. Thereafter, the said case was transferred to the Special Tribunal, Santhome and the Tribunal by its order dated 27.06.2000 dismissed the TRP 189/1999 in view of the repeal of the original Act by Repeal Act 20/1999 with effect from 16.06.1999. However, till date the physical possession of the subject land is with the petitioner and the said physical possession is confirmed from the date of Interim stay granted by this Court to till date. The petitioner after the Repeal Act sold several pieces of land to various persons on various dates and as on date the petitioner is in possession of the remaining extent only. However, the impugned order is pertaining to 21 acres and 50 cents and being the original owner and vendor, the petitioner is obliged to protect their valid and legal possession and rights. While being so, even after the Repeal Act, the authorities proceeded the matter and passed an impugned order under Section 12(6) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 24 of 1978 and called upon the petitioner for enquiry and for awarding of compensation, against which, the present writ petition came to be filed.

(3.) Mr.Balaji, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the Act was repealed on 16.06.1999 by the Repeal Act 20 of 1999, in several cases the rights of the innocent land owners were protected. Further, the State Government also passed a G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 03.03.2007, protecting the innocent land owners. Even thereafter the respondent proceeded with the matter and awarded compensation, which is unsustainable.