w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Shahul Hameed, Rep. by Power of Attorney M. Palanisamy & Others v/s The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- U. P. POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32201UP1999SGC024928

Company & Directors' Information:- D B POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109MP2006PLC019008

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L40105WB1919PLC003263

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U40101WB2003PLC097340

Company & Directors' Information:- B L A POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40102MH2006PTC165430

Company & Directors' Information:- L V S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40100TG1996PTC023552

Company & Directors' Information:- S L S POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109AP2005PLC047008

Company & Directors' Information:- S L V POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40102KA2002PTC030448

Company & Directors' Information:- S. E. POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = L40106GJ2010PLC091880

Company & Directors' Information:- E O S POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32109MH1985PTC037094

Company & Directors' Information:- D C POWER LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40109TG1996PLC025996

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U50101WB1997PLC084060

Company & Directors' Information:- B V POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40106DL2011PTC213428

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND H POWER COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109UP1965PTC003067

Company & Directors' Information:- B R POWER LTD [Active] CIN = U40106WB1995PLC073567

Company & Directors' Information:- N M S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1999PTC089747

Company & Directors' Information:- P R B POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101TG1995PTC020647

Company & Directors' Information:- S V G POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40300AP2012PTC084435

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31900DL1995PTC070096

Company & Directors' Information:- M POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31908MH2012PTC234343

Company & Directors' Information:- A N S INDIA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101DL2014PTC266873

Company & Directors' Information:- M M K POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40106AP1998PTC030796

Company & Directors' Information:- C R E M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101DL2001PTC111631

Company & Directors' Information:- D T POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40300AP2015PTC097226

Company & Directors' Information:- O L G POWER P LTD [Active] CIN = U30007TN1991PTC020898

Company & Directors' Information:- G S POWER LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40102KA2010PLC054033

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER AND POWER PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U31300AS1989PTC003282

Company & Directors' Information:- P D M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40104AS2014PTC011780

Company & Directors' Information:- S B S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40100AP2012PTC083965

Company & Directors' Information:- B & G POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40105PB2010PLC033765

Company & Directors' Information:- S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19202DL1986PTC026505

Company & Directors' Information:- G M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40105PN2003PTC017857

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31102WB1983PTC036315

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109PY2004PTC001824

Company & Directors' Information:- U S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U40103MH2009PTC189364

Company & Directors' Information:- K P M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40102KA2008PTC046804

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER-X PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1970PTC005331

Company & Directors' Information:- S K POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31101KA2006PTC039172

Company & Directors' Information:- R G D POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U41000TG1996PTC023809

Company & Directors' Information:- M M R POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31104DL2008PTC174079

Company & Directors' Information:- S J POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45207HR2012PTC045937

Company & Directors' Information:- T C POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101PB2009PTC033405

Company & Directors' Information:- H. & T. POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40106MH2016PTC287646

Company & Directors' Information:- S & O POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40107MH2010PTC206447

Company & Directors' Information:- V D M-POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC262999

Company & Directors' Information:- A C R POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900UP2010PTC040987

Company & Directors' Information:- W N POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101JK2013PTC004009

Company & Directors' Information:- C K S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101KA2010PTC052199

Company & Directors' Information:- G C I POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40107KA2010PTC053656

Company & Directors' Information:- R. C. POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40100GJ2009PTC058005

Company & Directors' Information:- J R J POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40300GJ2015PTC082396

Company & Directors' Information:- D V N POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101TG2007PTC053069

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2007PTC161616

    W.P. Nos. 1209 & 1210 of 2018 & W.M.P. Nos. 1510 & 1512 of 2018

    Decided On, 30 July 2021

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

    For the Petitioners: V. Raghavachari, N. Ponraj, Advocates. For the Respondents: Richardson Wilson, Government Counsel.



Judgment Text

(Prayer in W.P.No.1209/2018: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.7998/2016/ J3/ dated 3.11.2016 and Proceedings of the third respondent Na.Ka.No.743/2017/A2 dated 5.9.2017 and quash the same as illegal arbitrary and non est in law and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 6 to rectify the wrong sub division of lands acquired under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 in S.No.570A/2B admeasuring to an extent of 4969 Sq. Metres comprised in Kurichi Village Madukarai Taluk in the Field Measurement Book (FMB) and consequently make appropriate and proper mutation of the petitioners lands comprised in S.No.570/2A1 in Field Measurement Book (FMB) Village accounts and relevant Taluk Revenue records pertaining thereon, in view of the recommendation report dated 26.10.2015 submitted by the 3rd respondent in Proceedings Na.Ka.No.575/2015/A2 within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.)Common Order1. Since, in these writ petitions, the issue raised is one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, both these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The landed property at S.No.570/2A1 at Kurichi Village, Madukkarai Taluk, Coimbatore District is the subject matter.3. In respect of these lands, since the writ petitioners herein claimed ownership even at the time of the Urban Land Ceiling Act was in force, when the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings were initiated against one Venugopal Chettiyar, who is the adjacent land owner having land at S.No.570/2A1 at the same Kurichi Village, Madukkarai Taluk, Coimbatore District, it seems that the land belongs to the petitioners to the extent of 85 Cents or thereabout have been wrongly taken up for measurement and included in the holdings of the said Venugopal Chettiyar.4. Subsequently, along with other land holdings of Venugopal Chettiyar, this piece of land also since had been included, according to the respondents, the land in question claimed to be the petitioners' land had also been declared as excess land of the holdings of Venugopal Chettiyar and accordingly the same has been acquired as early as in the year 1993 and by virtue of such acquisition under Urban Land Ceiling Act, even though in the year 1998-99, the said Urban Land Ceiling Act was repealed by the Repealing Act what has been acquired in the regime of the Urban Land Ceiling Act has been protected and therefore in this context, it appears to be the stand of the respondents that, the plea of the petitioners to release the land belonging to the petitioners as referred to above in S.No.570/2A1, which, according to the petitioners have been wrongly acquired as if that it is excess land belonging to the said Venugopal Chettiyar, since has been rejected through the orders passed by the second and third respondents in the orders dated 03.11.2016 and 05.09.2017, challenging both the orders, these writ petitions have been filed with the aforesaid prayer.5. Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who has pointed out that, insofar as the petitioners' land at S.No.570/2A1 in the same Kurichi Village is concerned, absolutely there can be no dispute that the said land of 85 Cents and thereabout would belong to them. How they became owners of the property has been given in detail before the authorities concerned by tracing the title at the time of Urban Land Ceiling proceedings (hereinafter referred to as ULC proceedings). The adjacent land owner one Venugopal Chettiyar has been subjected to the land acquisition proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the ULC Act, where the said Venugopal Chettiyar since had land at S.No.570/2A1, which is the adjacent land, at the time of taking measurement and calculation for declaring a general declaration of the account of lands, the petitioners' lands to the extent of 85 Cents or thereabout were also wrongly included.6. Repeatedly, when it has been pointed out at various point of time by the petitioners to the respondents especially the ULC authorities, they have not considered the said plea of the petitioner to release the said land of the petitioners. At one point of time, the plea of the petitioners were considered by the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Coimbatore ie., the third respondent, who, after having gone through the plea of the petitioners and after verifying the records including the village records, 'A' Register etc., has sent a recommendatory report dated 26.10.2015, wherein the third respondent has stated the following.“LANGUAGE”7. Though such a clear order had been passed requesting the Commissioner for Urban Land Ceiling ie., the second respondent to pass necessary orders releasing the land belonging to the petitioners, as it has been wrongly included in the alleged excess holding of the said Venugopal Chettiyar, the second respondent Commissioner, through the impugned order dated 03.11.2016, which in fact was obtained by the petitioners through the first respondent, has out rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners on the only ground that, since the excess land at S.No.570/2A at Kurichi Village had been acquired on 08.07.1993 itself under the ULC regime, the second respondent need not pass any orders on the basis of the recommendatory report submitted by the third respondent dated 26.10.2015 and thereby, by passing a cryptic order, rejected the plea of the petitioners.8. Following which, the third respondent also passed an order dated 05.09.2017 taking the very same stand, as he has also stated that, as per Act 24 of 1978, since the land in question had been acquired and even though the said Act was repealed by the subsequent Act 20 of 1999, as claimed by the petitioners, the request of the petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture. Therefore, on that ground, it was considered to be not feasible of compliance, and accordingly it was rejected.9. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, by passing these orders both by the second respondent as well as the third respondent, which are impugned herein, they have not at all taken into account the plea raised by the petitioners, which have been considered initially by the third respondent, who sent a report dated 26.10.2015, where the third respondent has admitted that the land belongs to the petitioners had been wrongly included as if it is part of the excess land holdings of one Venugopal Chettiyar. Therefore, that kind of mistake committed by the authorities concerned ie., the respondents under the ULC Act can very well be rectified at any point of time. Therefore, without bestowing any interest on such plea raised by the petitioners, since it had been rejected through the cryptic order passed by the second respondent Commissioner vide his communication dated 03.11.2016, the said order, as well as the consequential order passed by the third respondent dated 05.09.2017 are untenable and therefore, they are liable to interfered with, he contended.10. Heard Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents, who would submit that, insofar as the acquisition of the excess land under ULC Act is concerned, those proceedings were concluded long years back ie., prior to 1999. During the ULC regime, under the provisions of the said Act, wherever there had been excess land in urban limits were identified and the excess land had been declared so. Accordingly, they were acquired. In the case in hand, insofar as the land now claimed by the petitioners is concerned, which were, according to the respondents, part of the estate of one Venugopal Chettiyar, whose lands were subjected to ULC proceedings, where the excess lands were declared so and the same were acquired in the year 1993 itself.11. Learned Government Counsel would further submit that, thereafter only in 1999, the repealing Act came into effect by 16.06.1999. By that time and well before that, the land which is in question, had been declared as excess land and was acquired. Therefore, it vests with the Government it cannot be once again retrieved or released by stating any other reason outside the scope of the ULC Act, as has been claimed by the petitioners and therefore, this has been considered by both the respondents and that reason has been reflected in the impugned order stating that, in view of the acquisition having been concluded as early as in the year 1993, and the ULC Act itself has been repealed, therefore the closed issue cannot be reopened or revisited. Therefore, by citing the said reason the impugned orders were passed by both the authorities. Hence, the learned Government Counsel wants to sustain the impugned orders.12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and have perused the materials placed on record.13. It is the definite case of the petitioners that, the land to the extent of 85 cents and thereabout at S.No.570/2A in Kurichi Village, Madukkarai Taluk, Coimbatore District belong to the petitioners. In order to substantiate the same, they had produced necessary documents before the authorities concerned. However, it is a fact that the said land had been wrongly included along with the holdings of one Venugopal Chettiyar during the ULC regime and accordingly it seems that, the lands in question had also been acquired under the provisions of the ULC Act. Subsequently when this was pointed out by the petitioners, at least at one point of time, the third respondent, having considered the revenue records, village records and 'A' Register, has come to the conclusion that, the Survey Number was initially subdivided into two in respect of which 78.3/4 Acres which belong to one Rama Konar and one Nanja Konar, which were also part of the land, also has been included to the extent of 4969 Sq.Mtrs with the excess lands of the said Venugopal Chettiyar. This inclusion, according to the third respondent was a wrong inclusion and therefore, based on such wrong inclusion, the land belongs to the petitioners since had been acquired wrongly under the ULC proceedings, a rectification can be made based on the records available with the Department and accordingly revised orders releasing the land can be passed on merits. Since this was the stand taken by the third respondent by his proceedings dated 26.10.2015 and the same having been forwarded by him to the second respondent to pass orders, the second respondent, in the impugned order dated 03.11.2016, has simply stated that, on 08.07.1993 the land was acquired through Act 24 of 1978, and therefore the recommendatory report of the third respondent need not be taken into account and no further order need to be passed.14. This approach on the part of the second respondent is totally against the procedure established under law. In the case in hand, it is not the case of the petitioners that, the land had been acquired as if that it has been the excess land of the petitioners' land holdings or their predecessors' land holdings under ULC. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners' land is no way connected with any land holdings of one Venugopal Chettiyar, who was considered to have excess land during the ULC regime.15. When that being so, at the time of measuring the lands, which belonged to the said Venugopal Chettiyar, the land belonging to the petitioners had been wrongly included since it happened to be the adjacent land. This has been clearly demonstrated by the third respondent through his recommendatory report dated 26.10.2015. When that being so, if at all any wrong is committed by the authorities and the same has been pointed out by the affected parties and if it is accepted by the authorities concerned, the same shall be revisited and it shall be reviewed and justice has to be rendered to the aggrieved persons.16. Instead of making this right approach, the second respondent Commissioner has simply stated that, in view of the acquisition having been completed on 08.07.1993 itself, the recommendatory report of the third respondent dated 26.10.2015 need not be taken into account.17. In this context, this Court is at a loss to understand as to on what basis such reason has been given by the second respondent, because, the 08.07.1993 acquisition itself is not related to the land belonging to the petitioners. If at all any acquisition is made under the ULC Act, as if that it is part of the lands belonging to one Venugopal Chettiyar, whose other lands have been subjected to ULC regime as excess land, that kind of acquisition should apply only to the ULC land and not to any other third parties' lands like the petitioners.18. When such wrong committed by the respondents are pointed out, the same should be revisited and orders should be reviewed by the second respondent who is the authority under the Act.19. Therefore, the second respondent by passing such a cryptic order shirking the responsibility vested in him, hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not acceptable or it is untenable. Therefore, on that ground itself, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders can very well be interfered with.20. When the second respondent, passed such a cryptic order dated 03.11.2016, almost by stating the same reason, the third respondent also, on 05.09.2017 passed similar order or reiterating the same reason that the repealing Act 20 of 1999 repealed the earlier Act 14 of 1978, therefore, the third respondent's recommendatory report dated 26.10.2015 need not be taken into account.21. These reasons given by both the respondents ie., second and t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

hird respondents in the respective impugned orders dated 29.10.2015 and 03.11.2016, in the considered opinion of this Court, is totally untenable and unacceptable. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with.22. In the result, the following orders are passed in these writ petitions.* That the respective impugned orders passed by the second and third respondents are hereby quashed.* As a sequel, the matters are remitted back to the second respondent to reconsider the same.* While reconsidering the said issue, the second respondent shall call for the original records from the lower authorities concerned and after verifying the same and by giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, fresh orders after reviewing the position as indicated above shall be passed by the second respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.* In this context, notice shall be given separately to all the petitioners by the second respondent fixing the date of enquiry and on the date of enquiry, the petitioners shall appear before the second respondent and produce the relevant documents in order to substantiate their claim that the land in question is no way connected to the lands acquired under ULC Act and therefore the same have to be released from the clutches of the ULC proceedings.22. With these directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
O R