STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. versus M. S. VISWANATHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 607 · Decided: 20-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
607
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
v.
M. S. VISWANATHAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5881 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
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was repealed through the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and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 re-
allotment 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
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 607
607
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
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 respondents-
owners 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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.