Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 – Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – s.3 – The land owner, mother of the respondents, was required to surrender the excess land of 6750 sq. mts. under the 1978 Act – A notice was served to her regarding the same u/s.9(4) of the 1978 Act – Thereafter, notifications were issued u/s.11(1) and s.11(3) of the 1978 Act and she was directed to surrender or deliver the vacant possession of the excess land – In compliance, she surrendered land vide letter dated 11.11.1980 and the compensation payable to her was determined and paid – The Government first allotted the said excess land of 6750 sq. mts. to the Madras Snake Park Trust, however, the said allotment was cancelled and the excess land was re-allotted to the forest department – In the meantime, the 1978 Act was repealed through the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – The land owner died in 1998 – After five years of the said repeal, the respondents-owners filed writ petition before the High Court for declaration that the entire proceeding under the 1978 Act and process of allotment and reallotment was void ab initio under the Repeal Act – The writ petition was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court on the short ground that as per Inspection Reports of the competent authority and the Assistant Commissioner, the acquired land was lying vacant enclosed by a compound wall – The intra-Court appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court – On appeal, held: Admittedly, by her own letter dated 11.11.1980, the land owner voluntarily surrendered and delivered possession – The respondents cannot go beyond the contents of the letter dated 11.11.1980 – The High Court did not look into the letter dated 11.11.1980 nor the records of the Department were examined – Both the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench proceeded on the premise that the land was lying vacant with a compound wall and that therefore, the claim of the land owner to be in possession must be correct – The presumption was wrong – The existence of the compound wall enclosing the land that had already been sold by the land owner to the Trust, and it is admitted by the land owner herself in her letter dated 11.11.1980 – Therefore, the High Court committed a grave error in granting the benefit of s.3(2) of the Repeal Act to the respondents – Thus, the judgment of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench are set aside and the writ petition of the respondentsowners is dismissed. Allowing C.A. No. 5885 of 2010 and closing C.A.No. 5881 of 2010, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 incorporates, in simple terms, two rules. They are: (i) the repeal of the principal Act will not affect the vesting of any vacant land under Section 11(3), if the possession thereof has been taken over either by the State Government or by any person duly authorised by the State Government or by the competent authority; (ii) but if the possession of a land which is deemed to have vested in the State Government under Section 11(3), has not been taken over by the Government or the competent authority, the same shall be restored to the person in respect of whom the land was declared surplus, provided the amount paid by the State Government towards compensation has been refunded to the State Government. [Para 17][614-B-D]
2. In essence, “taking over possession” forms the lifeline of Section 3 of the Repeal Act and a person seeking the benefit of the Repeal Act for restoration of the land should plead and prove that possession was not taken over. However, in the instant case, admittedly by her own letter dated 11.11.1980, the land owner voluntarily surrendered and delivered possession pursuant to the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act dated 24.10.1980. The respondents, who are the sons and daughters of the land owner, cannot go beyond the contents of the aforesaid letter dated 11.11.1980, as she admittedly passed away on 26.10.1998, even before the Repeal Act was enacted. From 11.11.1980 till her death in 1998, the land owner never went back on the contents of the said letter. [Paras 18, 19 and 20][614-E-H]
ORS.
3. The respondents attempted to get over a categorical statement regarding surrender of possession made by the land owner herself in the first part of her letter dated 11.11.1980, by relying upon the last few lines of the very same letter, which stated that “I have left keys with the Secretary, Madras Snake Park Trust for the purpose of safety...whenever required by you”. It was contended that a mere statement that the keys were left with the Trust may not tantamount to delivery of possession. A careful reading of the last paragraph of the said letter would show that the land owner had already sold to the Snake Park Trust, a land adjoining the surplus land, when both formed part of one large piece of land encompassed by a big compound wall with the gates. Therefore, she had left the keys with the Secretary of the same Trust, to which the acquired land was also first allotted, after vesting took place in terms of Section 11(3). There was no indication in the last paragraph to retain control of possession. In fact, the first paragraph of the letter contains a categorical statement that the owner was surrendering and delivering possession. She was merely asking for payment of compensation. Therefore, this is not a case where there is any scope for word play. [Paras 21,22, 23 and 24][614-H; 615-A, H; 616-A-E]
4. Unfortunately, the High Court did not even look into the letter dated 11.11.1980 nor did the High Court examine the records of the Department. Both the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench proceeded on the premise that the land was lying vacant with a compound wall and that therefore, the claim of the land owner to be in possession must be correct. There can hardly be any such presumption. The existence of the compound wall enclosing even the land that had already been sold by the land owner to the Trust, is admitted by the land owner herself in her letter dated 11.11.1980. Therefore, the High Court committed a grave error in granting the benefit of Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act to the respondents herein. [Para 26][617-A-C]
Gajanan Kamlya Patil v. Additional Collector And Competent Authority (ULC) And Others (2014) 12 SCC
523 : [2014] 1 SCR 1032 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.