The Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of the second respondent dated 30.4.1997 vide Ref.Na.Ka.S.R.26/96B issued under Section 9(5), and Notice dated 7.9.1998 vide Ref.Rc.1202/98B under Section 11(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978, in respect of lands in Survey No.221/9 measuring about 1400 square metres of Pozhichalur village, Tambaram Taluk, and quash the same, and further direct the respondents to treat the proceedings referred to above as abated under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 20 of 1999), so as to enable the 3rd respondent to correct the entry in the revenue records to include the petitioner's name as owner.
2. Petitioner claims to be the owner of land measuring to an extent of 34 cents of agricultural land. In May 2005 when the petitioner approached the Village Administrative Officer for adangal extract, it was informed by the said officer that the property in question has been acquired under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978, viz., the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978. Thereafter, petitioner made enquiries and was informed that the land in question was subjected to acquisition proceedings under the aforesaid Act. Stating that the property in question is still in possession of the petitioner and in view of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, the Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 1999, the entire proceedings of the respondents abates and the orders/proceedings have to be quashed.
3. In response to the writ petition a counter-affidavit has been filed by the second respondent, the Competent Authority. The details of the various proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 are contained in para 2 of the counter-affidavit, which reads as follows:-
"2. It is submitted that Tvl.Munusamy and Adhikesavan were the registered holders of the land in S.No.221/9 measuring 1400 sq. mts., in Polichalur village, Tambaram Taluk. As Urban Land Owners had not filed return u/s 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (C & R) Act, 1978, a notice u/s 7(2) of the Act was issued in SR.26/96, dated 28.2.97. Draft Statement u/s 9(1) with notice u/s 9(4) of the Act was issued on 20.3.97. Both the 7(2) notice and Draft statement were served by affixure since the urban land owners had refused to receive the notice. The Asst. Commissioner and (it must be had) inspected the land on 10-4-97 and found it was urban. As there was no objection to the Draft statement and notice, after verifying the records, the excess vacant land was declared as 400 sq. mts., in S.No.221/9 pt., of Polichalur village after allowing 1000 sq. mts., towards individual entitlement to the co-owners and orders passed u/s 9(5) of the Act on 30-4-97. This 9(5) order was served by affixure before the village Administrative Officer concerned since the Urban Land Owner was not residing in the village and their address was not known. Final statement u/s 10(1) of the Act was issued on 31.12.97 and served by affixure. Notification u/s 1(1) of the Act was issued in the Tamil Nadu Govt. Gazette No.141, dated 15.4.98 in part VI/I529/98 at page 516. Notification u/s 11(3) of the Act was issued in Tamil Nadu Govt. Gazette No.27, dated 15-7-98 in Part VI/I/1051/98 at page 976-977. Notice u/s 11(5) of the Act was issued on 7-9-98. The possession of excess vacant land in S.No.221/9B measuring 400 sq. mts., was taken on 30-3-99 and handed over to Revenue Department.
The Urban Land Owner Thiru Munusamy has filed this writ petition against the acquisition of excess vacant land after six years."
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit.
5. As seen from the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, notice under Section 9(4) of the Act and the Draft Statement under
Section 9(1) of the Act have been served by way of affixure stating that the land owner refused to receive the notice. On the contrary, according to the respondents, the declaration order passed under Section 9(5) of the Act dated 30.4.1997 said to have been served on the petitioner by way of affixure stating that the land owner was not residing in the village and the address was not known. Further, even, the notice under
Section 11(5) of the Act has not been served on the petitioner and no details of such service is given in the affidavit. In so far as the notice under Section 9(4) and the Draft Statement under
Section 9(1) of the Act is concerned, a procedure has been prescribed under Rule 8 as to the mode of service and that apparently has not been followed. Further, the question of affixure does not arise unless and until the notice is issued by way of a Registered Post to the person concerned. In this case, there is no material to show that registered notice was in fact issued and refused by the persons concerned. The stand in the counter-affidavit is contradictory with regard to the place of residence of the petitioner. At once place it is stated that the petitioner refused to receive the notice and the very same authority in paragraph 2 of the counter has stated that the address of the petitioner, the land owner, is not known. Even in the counter-affidavit, it is stated that possession of the excess land was taken on 30.3.99. Except statement on affidavit no material is produced by the respondents to show that actual possession was taken over in the manner prescribed. It is therefore, clear that the possession of the land continues with the petitioner.
6. Without proper notice as contemplated under the rules, the impugned proceedings has been passed and that cannot be accepted. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that possession of excess vacant land of 400 square meters was handed over to Revenue Department. A mere statement cannot be accepted as valid handing over of possession in the eye of law. None of the procedures envisaged under Act 24 of 1978 has been followed. Further, in view of Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 20 of 1999), the proceedings initiated by the respondents abates.
7. In the result, the impugned proceedings are set aside. The writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The third respondent is directed to correct the entry in the revenue records to include the petitioner's name. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ts To
1.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Assistant Commissioner/ Competent Authority, Tambaram, Office at Sannadhi Street, Alandur, Chennai-600 088.
3.The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram