W.A.No.906 of 1998 Mrs.Noorjahan Razack ... Appellant Vs.
1.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, Chennai-600 006.
Writ Appeal No.905 of 1998 has been preferred by the appellants/writ petitioners against the G.O.Ms.No.2682, dated 07.12.1979, Revenue Department under which exemption from the provisions of Chapter III under Section 21(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 was granted to M/s.Mamidi Manavala Chetty & Co. for retaining an extent of 428 sq. meters in Plot No.59/D, Ambattur Industrial Estate, subject to condition that the exempted land should be utilised for industrial purpose within a period of two yeas. As no valid reason has been put forth by the company for non-utilisation of the exempted land within the stipulated time and further the second respondent herein also has cancelled the allotment, the Government withdrew the exemption by G.O.Ms.No.146, Revenue Department dated 29.01.1990. Challenging this, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.2124 of 1990 and the same was dismissed on 19.06.1998.
2. Writ Appeal No.906 of 1998 has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 19.06.1998 made in W.P.No.8422 of 2008, dismissing the Writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 22.06.1988 passed by the first respondent herein, cancelling the allotment order dated 19.10.1972, made in favour of M/s.Mamidi Manavala Chetty Co. for violation of terms and conditions of Assignment Deed dated 20.06.1974, i.e., for non-utilisation of plot.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
On 19.10.1972, the second respondent in W.A.No.906 of 1998 has allotted the industrial Plot No.59-D, in the Industrial Estate Ambattur within an extent of 60 cents to M/s.Mamidi Manavala Chetty Co, a sole proprietary concern of R.Mamidi alias Razack Gupta for setting up a factory for manufacture of safety equipments and glows etc; that on 06.08.1973 possession thereof was handed over and on 03.12.1974 the layout prepared was approved; that consequent to coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling Regulation) Act, the allottee applied for the grant of exemption from the application of the provisions of the said act and in G.O.Ms.No.2682 dated 07.12.1979 exemption was granted; that there after the plan prepared by the allottee for the development of the land by construction of the building was approved by the Ambattur Municipal Council on 07.10.1980; that to commence the construction of the building further approval of other authorities such as the Pollution Control Board and also Department of Factories is also needed; that thereby delay was caused in the commencement of the construction of the building; that consequently, the second respondent on 03.04.1982 issued a show cause notice proposing cancellation of the allotment on the ground of non utilization of the plot for the intended purposes and the allottee was called upon to show cause on or before 30.05.1982; that on 02.06.1982, the sole proprietor of the allottee expired and the first appellant under her letter dated 15.06.1983 intimated the second respondent about the demise of her husband and sent legal heir certificate issued by the Collector of Madras and required it to transfer the allotment in her name and grant six months time to start the industry; that on 11.07.1983 the second respondent required the appellant to furnish the details of the arrangements made to start the industry and also the financial arrangements for the implementation of the project on or before 31.08.1983; that on 30.08.1983, the first appellant furnished the details required by the second respondent and prayed for grant of one year time to complete the project; that the second respondent by its letter dated 08.11.1983 informed the first appellant that the legal heir certificate produced is not sufficient to effect the transfer of the allotment made to the company and again called upon the first appellant to produce a succession certificate from a competent court; that the first appellant informed the second respondent that the legal heir certificate has been granted by the Collector after making due enquiry and hearing the objections of one Kalavathy, who also claimed to be the wife of the deceased M.R.Gupta; that she also produced the assessment order of the Commercial Tax Department wherein she has been recognized as the legal heir in the assessment proceedings of M/s.Mamidi Manavala Chetty Co.; that on 23.04.1984 the second respondent again required the first appellant to produce the succession certificate to effect transfer of the plot to her; that notwithstanding the various representations made by the first appellant that here is no need to produce succession certificate, the second respondent in its proceedings dated 16.06.1986 required the first appellant to produce the succession certificate on or before 13.06.1986 and again in its proceedings dated 02.09.1987 required the first appellant to show cause within 30 days from the receipt of notice why the the allotment should not be cancelled; that after the receipt of the further representation from the first appellant and her children, the second respondent in its proceedings dated 30.09.1987 informed the first appellant about the rival claims made by one M.Rajalakshmi and another Kalyani as the wives of the deceased and informed the first appellant that further action will be taken on the receipt of succession certificate, that despite the repeated representations made by the first appellant to the effect that there is no need to produce a succession certificate from the court, the second respondent in its proceedings dated 22.06.1988 cancelled the allotment of the Plot No.59-D on the ground of violation of the conditions of the deed of assignment and called upon the first appellant to handover possession to the Project Officer within 30 days receipt of the order; that consequent to the order passed by the second respondent in W.A.No.906 of 1998, the first respondent in W.A.No.905 of 1998 under G.O.Ms.No.2682 dated 07.12.1997 cancelled the exemption granted to the allottee from the application of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The appellants/Writ petitioners preferred writ petitions against the order passed by the SIDCO, dated 22.06.1988 and also challenged the G.O.Ms.No.146, Revenue Department, dated 29.01.1990 and the same were dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
4. The points for consideration in the writ appeals are the following:-
1. Whether the respondent-SIDCO, is entitled to cancel the allotment of Industrial Plot No.59-D in the Industrial Estate, Ambattur and recover possession of the same from the appellants?
2.Whether the order passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu cancelling the exemption granted from the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations)Act to M/s.Mamidi Manavala Chetty and Co., is valid?
5. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the respective counsel and also the materials made available to us. We find that consequent to the allotment made, the allottee has completed all requisite formalities to construct the building and commence the industrial activities. However for the reasons beyond its control, there was delay in the construction of the building and the commencement of the industrial activities. It is appears that the second respondent taking into consideration that after the demise of the allottee any development by way of improvements to the plot could not be effected before the change of allotment in the appellants name, it did not cancel the allotment as proposed in the first show cause notice despite no explanation was offered to the show cause notice but required the first appellant to produce the succession certificate; that in view one of the rival claimants filing a suit on the file of this Court in the year 1987 for declaration that she is the legal heir, it should not have cancelled the allotment as it would take considerable time for this Court to decide the issue. In the impugned order of cancellation of the allotment of the industrial plot for non utilization, a reference has been made as if the allottee has violated the conditions of the assignment deed but the said deed alleged to be executed by the allottee has not been placed before us. However the second respondent in its counter statement has made a reference as to the execution of the deed of assignment on 20.06.1974. Yet in its subsequent communications dated 03.12.1974 and 03.04.1986 it is stated that the allottee has not executed a deed of assignment as required. The first appellant has specifically stated that no assignment deed has been executed by the allottee. The respondent has not produced the said assignment deed said to be executed by the allottee containing provisions for the cancellation of the allotment in case of non utilization of the plot allotted. In the absence of such an authority for the cancelation, the cancellation made is not valid. It is to be noted that the very object of the second respondent is to promote small scale industries in the State of Tamil Nadu and the allottee by delaying the construction of the building and non utilization of the plot has not committed any serious violation of the allotment such as transfer/subletting or use of the plot for unauthorized purposes warranting cancellation of the allotment. The allottee is in possession of the plot for more than 17 years on the date of cancellation of the allotment after the payment of the entire cost of the plot. it is also pertinent to note that it was brought to the notice of the court by the counsel for the appellants at the time of final hearing of the writ petitions about the abatement of the suit filed by the said Rajalakshmi and demise of Kalavathy who were the rival claimants to the industrial plot in question. If there is any other claimants for the plot in question, they would have come forward with the claim for transfer of the plot in their name but also questioned and validity of the cancellation of the allotment made. It is therefore evident that the first appellant alone is entitled to have the plot transferred in her name. In the absence of the second respondent placing the court any material to show that it is entitled to cancel the allotment for non utilization of the plot allotted and the extenuating circumstances as stated supra, the cancellation of the allotment is arbitrary and unreasonable. The second respondent having postponed the threatened act of cancellation of the allotment for 6 years after coming know about the demise of the allottee, it should not have abruptly cancelled the allotment without giving the appellant reasonable opportunity to establish her right of succession to her husband's plot in question. Besides, we find that the learned Single Judge without consideration of all the relevant materials available on record has passed the impugned orders warranting our interference in this appeal. Hence the order of the second respondent dated 22.06.1988 is liable to be quashed and the consequential order passed by the Revenue Authority in G.O.Ms.No.146,Revenue Department, dated 29.01.1990 is also liable to be quashed. Accordingly the said cancellation order dated 22.06.1988 and the consequential orders passed by the Revenue Authority in G.O.Ms.No.146, Revenue Department, dated 29.01.1990 are quashed and the writ appeals are allowed.
6. We also found that the appellants claim to the industrial plot is valid and when particularly the commercial taxes and the Revenue Departments have recognised them as the legal representative of the first appellant's husband M.R.Gupta, sole proprietor of M/s.Mamidi Manavala Chetty and Co. It was also brought to our notice at the time of hearing of this appeals that the appellants have since obtained Letters of Administration to administer estate of late M.R.Gupta after filing of the writ petitions. In these circumstances, the appellants are entitled to have the allotment of the industrial plot transferred in their name. We therefore direct the second respondent to transfer the allotment in their names. Further since the first appellant would require some time to commence the constructions and the industrial activities, we direct the second respondent to grant one year time to commence the industrial activities from the date of transfer of the allotment in their names. In case of the appellants failing to utilize the plot for the intended purposes within a period of one year from the transfer, it is then open to the second respondent to take such action as it is entitled to. In the circumstances, the writ appeals are allowed without costs.
rrg To
1.The Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Director of Industries and Commerce, The State of Tamil Nadu, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005