IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.07.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.8800 of 2004 and CMP.No.14265 of 2003 1.Vasudeva Pillai (Died) 2.Selvaraj 3.Sundaram 4.V.Mohana 5.V.Purushothaman 6.V.Datchayani 7.V.Rishikesavan 8.S.Kumari 9.V.Punidhavel ... Petitioners (P4 to P9 substituted as Lrs of the deceased 1st petitioner as per court order dated 28.11.2008 in WPMP.No.1787/2008 in W.P.No.8800/04 by KCJ) Vs. The Competent Authority and Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Ceiling) Tambaram. ...Respondent W.P.No.8800 of 2004 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to set aside the order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.SR 175/97 B dated 26.6.1997. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sivaji For Respondent : Mr.M.Dhandapani, Spl.G.P. O R D E R
Heard both sides.
2.This writ petition arises out of a Special Revision (SRP.48 of 2001) filed by the petitioners before the Special Appellate Tribunal under Section 15 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (for short Act). The petitioners challenged the Order passed by the respondent dated 26.06.1997 in Ref.No.Na.Ka.SR 175/97 B in that Special Revision Petition.
3.In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as CRP No.1911 of 2003. However, a learned Judge of this court opined that no Civil Revision Petition will lie as the officers whose orders under challenge were not a Court but only statutory authorities. Therefore, the CRP was converted into a writ petition and notice was ordered.
4. Before the Tribunal, no counter affidavit was filed by the respondent. But the original records were circulated for perusal by this court.
5.The contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners were as follows:
a)No notice was given to the original owners under Sections 7(2), 9(1), 9(4) and 11(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1978.
b)The notice claimed to have been sent is not in accordance with law and more particularly prescribed under Rule 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978.
c)The lands are classified as agricultural lands and continues to be agricultural land and in terms of Section 3(p) of the Act such lands could not have been covered by the Act and hence the proceedings initiated are void ab initio. There is no material under which the respondent has taken action under the Act.
6. The petitioners are son and grand sons of Late Vasudeva Pillai. The late Vasudeva Pillai and his wife Tmt.Govindammal who is also no more are the owners of the land against which proceedings are initiated. Vasudeva Pillai purchased the land by a registered sale deed in the year 1945 from one Nagalingam Chettiar. The lands are referred to as agricultural lands and it continues to be on record as agricultural lands. It is claimed that no notice under Section 7(2) of the Act was served on the owner either on the date of initiation of proceedings viz.,11/04/1997 or on the date of passing of the order dated 26.06.1997. The land owner was not alive and hence, the proceedings initiated against a dead person is not valid. On 13.08.2001, the adjacent land owner in S.No.266 informed the petitioners about the proceedings who had also suffered by similar orders. Thereafter, the petitioners secured the impugned order and challenged the same before the Tribunal.
7. The original records produced show that notice under Section 9(5) of the Act was not served on any person. It was stated that since the owner was not living in the village and their address was not known to them a stick was installed in the land and the notice was affixed. Since 30 days have elapsed and no objections were raised final orders were passed. In so far as Section 7(2) notice is concerned, the endorsement showed that draft notice under Section 9(1) and 9(4) were sought to be served with an endorsement that the land owner refused to receive. Therefore, it was served by affixture in the vacant land. Such a statement was totally false because the land owner had passed away as early as 30.05.1991. It clearly shows that the records have been fabricated with such an endorsement. It is found that some notice was served on Vasudeva Pillai the original first petitioner. No other legal heirs were served with any notice. Despite the fact that the original owner was no more, no attempt was taken to serve the legal heirs on the subsequent proceedings
8. Rule 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules prescribes the method of serving notice on the holders of the land. Rule 8(2) reads as follows:-
“8(2)(a) The draft statement together with the notice referred to in sub-section (4) of section 9 shall be served on- (i) the holder of the vacant lands, and
(ii) all other persons, so far as may be known, who have, or are likely to have any claim to, or interest in, the ownership, or possession, or both, of the vacant lands,
by sending the same by registered post addressed to the person concerned-
(i) in the case of the holder of the vacant lands, to his address as given in the statement filed in pursuance to sub-section (1) of section 7, and
(ii) in the case of other persons, at their last known addresses.
(b)where the draft statement and the notice are returned as refused, by the addressee, the same shall be deemed to have been duly served on such person.”
9. Since the respondent has deliberately made a false statement that the land owner had refused to receive when the truth of the matter was that he is no more, the statement made by the respondent cannot be countenanced by this Court. Any proceedings initiated with such a notice is invalid and void ab initio. In view of this finding on contentions 1 and 2, it is unnecessary to deal with the 3rd contention.
10. The writ petition stands allowed with costs. Cost quantified at Rs.5,000/- payable to the counsel for the petitioners. Connected M.P stands closed.
svki
To
The Competent Authority
and Assistant Commissioner
(Urban Land Ceiling)
Tambaram