J.

RAVINDRAN LAW OFFICERS’ BLOCK

ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
OF TAMIL NADU CHENNAI - 104
(CO-ORDINATION) Off: 2955 0478
25343362

OPINION N0. 91 /2023, Dated: _________

To

_______________________

Sir,
Sub: Legal Opinion – Further course of action to be taken regarding
W.P. Nos. 30961 / 2006, 22886 / 2012 and M.P. Nos. 1 of 2006 & 1
of 2009 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Madras – Regarding

Ref:
1. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras common order dated: 16. 03.
2021 in W.P. Nos. 30961 / 2006, 22886 / 2012 and M.P. Nos. 1 of
2006 & 1 of 2009.
2. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras Common Judgement dated : 27.
07. 2023 in W.A. Nos. 1907, 1910 of 2023
3. Dr. N. Venkatachalam IAS, Rc. No. G3 / 3776 / 2021, dated: 14.
09. 2023 and
4. Connected Records. The facts of the case are derived from the
documents submitted herein:

In the matter of W.P. No.30961 of 2006, the background is as follows, that, the
land measuring 2000 sq.m., S.No.51/10 of Noombal village, previously under
Saidapet Taluk, was registered in Thiru. Arumugam's name in the revenue
records as of 03.08.1976. Thiru. Arumugam, the landowner, failed to submit the

1
return under Section 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1978 ("the Act"). Consequently, a notice under Section 7(2) of the Act was
issued by the Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling) Poonamallee on
11.02.1992 (SR.756/1992), and it was received by the Urban Land Owner on
23.02.1993. No objections were filed by the Land Owner.

A notice under Section 9(4) along with a statement under Section 9(1) of the Act
was issued on 19.04.1994, calling for objections to the proposed acquisition of
1500 sq.m., after allowing an entitlement area of 500 sq.m. The notices were
received by Tmt A. Saraswathi, daughter of the Urban Land Owner, on
23.09.1994. Another notice was issued on 27.01.1995, requesting the Urban
Land Owner to file objections, along with family details and documents. This
notice was served on Tmt. Susila, wife of Arumugam. The Competent Authority
(Urban Land Ceiling) Poonamallee inspected the case land on 31.01.1995 and
found that it had been converted into house site plots. Despite the inspection, no
objections were filed by the Urban Land Owner. Consequently, orders under
Section 9(5) of the Act were issued on 09.02.1995 (proceedings
Rc.No.408/1995, SR.562/1994) to acquire the excess vacant land of 1500 sq.m.,
and the order was served upon Thiru. A. Umapathy, son of the Urban Land
Owner (petitioner herein), on 23.06.1995.

The final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 24.11.1995,
and the same was served upon Tmt. Annammal, sister of the Urban Land Owner.
Notification under Section 11(1) of the Act was issued on 29.02.1996, published
in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part-VI, Section-I issue No. 13, dated
03.04.1996, declaring the state's intention to acquire the vacant land. As the
Urban Land Owner did not file any objection, a notification under Section 11(3)
of the Act was issued on 22.07.1996, declaring that the excess vacant land
referred to in the schedule shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State
Government as of 01.09.1996. This was published in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette Part VI, Section I issue No. 35 dated 11.09.1996, at Page
No.999. A notice under Section 11(5) was issued on 30.01.1997, requesting the
Urban Land Owner to surrender or deliver possession of the land to the Tahsildar,
Ambattur, within 30 days. Non-compliance would result in the authority taking
possession using necessary force.

2
The aforementioned notice was duly acknowledged by Tmt Annammal, the sister
of the urban landowner. Despite receiving the notice, the urban landowner failed
to file any objection, thereby precluding the invocation of Section 11(6).
Consequently, as a result of the urban landowner's non-compliance with the
Section 11(5) notice, possession of the land was seized by the Zonal Tahsildar,
Ambattur Talk, on 19.06.1997. Subsequently, the possession was transferred to
the Deputy Tahsildar, Poonamallee Talk, on the same day through a Land
Delivery Receipt, duly attested by both revenue authorities.

Thiru. A. Umapathy, the petitioner herein, submitted an application on

01.03.1999 before the Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Tax) Poonamallee,
seeking certified copies of the acquisition proceedings. Additionally, on
19.03.1999, the petitioner filed an appeal with the then Special Commissioner
and Commissioner of Land Reforms (1st respondent herein), contesting the
acquisition proceedings on the grounds that his father, Arumugam, had passed
away 30 years prior. The petitioner, highlighting his family's composition of eight
members, appealed for the cancellation of the acquisition proceedings. The
appeal was dismissed as time-barred, and the orders of the Competent
Authority, Poonamallee, were affirmed by the Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Reforms in proceedings J1/7150/1999, dated 15.06.1999.

Subsequently, a notice under Section 12(7) of the Act was issued on 30.05.2002
by the Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling) Poonamallee, and despite the
urban landowner's refusal to receive it, the notice was served through affixture
on 21.06.2002. Orders under Section 12(6) of the Act were issued on
22.09.2003, determining the amount payable at the rate of Rs.1500/- in lieu of
the acquired excess vacant land. This order was served upon Thiru. A.
Umapathy, the son of the Urban Land Owner. As neither the Urban Land Owner
nor his family members came forward to claim the amount, it was drawn and
deposited in Revenue Deposit on 24.02.2005. After a lapse of six years, Thiru. A.
Umapathy filed Writ Petition No. 30961 of 2006.

In the matter of W.P. No.24886 of 2012, Thiru A. Viswanathan, the purported

owner of certain lands in Anaikattucherry village as per the Revenue Records on

3
09.08.1995, failed to file a return under Section 7(1) of the Act. The applicability
of the Act to Anaikattuchery Village was extended through G.O.Ms. No. 679,
Revenue (RD) Department, dated 17.07.1995, effective from 09.08.1995.
Consequently, a notice under Section 7(2) of the Act was issued on 02.07.1996
and served on 26.09.1996 to Thiru. P. Gopi, the brother-in-law of the Urban
Land Owner. Despite service, no return or objections were filed by the
landowner.

Subsequently, a draft notice under Section 9(4) along with a draft statement
under Section 9(1) of the Act was issued on 06.11.1996, inviting objections to
the proposed acquisition of 39520 sq.m., accounting for a family entitlement
area of 500 sq.m. The said notice and statement were served on 29.01.1997 to
Thiru. P. Radhakrishnan. The Urban Land Owner did not submit any objections.
Following this, the lands underwent inspection by the Deputy Tahsildar on
13.03.1997.

On 14.05.1997, the aforementioned order was served on Tmt V. Kamala, the

wife of the urban land owner. No objections were raised by the Urban Land
Owner in response to this order. The final statement under Section 10(1) of the
Act was issued on 30.09.1997 and served on the Urban Land Owner on
12.12.1997. A notification under Section 11(1) of the Act was issued on
11.02.1998, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part-VI, Section-I
on 25.03.1998. This notification declared the State Government's intention to
acquire the vacant land, inviting claims from interested parties within 30 days.

As the Urban Land Owner did not file objections for the acquisition, a Notification
under Section 11(3) of the Act was issued on 25.04.1998, declaring the excess
vacant land acquired with effect from 01.06.1998. This was published in the
Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part VI, Section I issue No.23 dated 17.06.1998
at Page No.839. A notice under Section 11(5) was issued on 28.08.1998,
directing the Urban Land Owner to surrender or deliver possession of the land to
the Tahsildar, Poonamallee, within 30 days. Non-compliance would result in the
authority taking possession using necessary force. The Urban Land Owner
refused to receive the notice, leading to service by affixture by the Field

4
Assistant on the field. No objections were raised by the Urban Land Owner, and
thus, the circumstances for invoking Section 11(6) did not arise.

As the Urban Land Owner failed to comply with the Section 11(5) notice,
possession of the land was handed over by the Deputy Tahsildar, Poonamallee,
and taken over by Avadi Firka, Revenue Inspector, on 15.06.1999, documented
through a Land Delivery Receipt attested by both revenue authorities.
Subsequently, the legal heirs of the Urban Land Owner, Tvl. Mallikeswari and
another, filed a writ petition in W.P. 24886 of 2012, challenging the acquisition
proceedings after a lapse of 12 years.

In the present case, concerning the excess vacant land measuring 1500 sq.m.,
situated at S.No.51/10, Noombal Village, all mandated notices, statements, and
orders were duly served upon the Urban Land Owner, Thiru. Arumugam, as well
as other relevant individuals including A. Saraswathi (Daughter), Susila (Wife),
A. Umapathy (Son), and Tmt. Annammal (Sister) of the Urban Land Owner, at
various stages of the acquisition proceedings. The notification under Section
11(1) dated 29.02.1996 was officially published in the Tamil Nadu Government
Gazette No.13, dated 03.04.1996, in Part VI - Section I. Subsequently, the
notification under Section 11(3) of the Act, dated 22.07.1998, was published in
the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.35, dated 11.09.1996, in Part VI -
Section I. This declaration specified that, with effect from 01.09.1996, the land
was deemed to have been acquired by the State Government, and such land was
to be considered as having vested absolutely in the State Government, free from
all encumbrances.

Moreover, with regard to the excess vacant land measuring 25,800 sq.m. at
S.No.50/3A, 48/6, etc., in Anaikattucherry Village, acknowledgment of all
statutory notices, statements, and orders was made by the Urban Land Owner,
Thiru. Viswanathan, along with Gopi (Brother-in-law), Kamala (Wife), and Thiru.
Radhakrishnan at various stages of the acquisition proceedings. The notification
under Section 11(1) dated 11.02.1998 was officially published in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette on 25.03.1998. Additionally, the notification under Section
11(3) of the Act, dated 28.08.1998, was published in Tamil Nadu Government
Gazette No.23, dated 17.06.1998, declaring that, with effect from 01.06.1998,

5
the land was deemed to have been acquired by the State Government, and such
land shall be considered to have vested absolutely in the State Government, free
from all encumbrances.

In the case of S.No.51/10, Thiru. Arumugam, the Urban Land Owner,

acknowledged the receipt of the 7(2) Notice. Conversely, in the case of S.Nos.
50/3A, 48/6, etc., Thiru. Viswanathan, the Urban Land Owner, acknowledged the
receipt of the 10(1) Notification. The demise of both Urban Land Owners was not
communicated to the Competent Authority by their family members until the
completion of the acquisition proceedings.

Although the petitioners currently reside on the writ lands, they are deemed
mere "trespassers" on Government lands. In both the aforementioned
acquisitions, possession of the case lands was taken over by Revenue Authorities
on 19.06.1997 and 15.06.1999, well before the introduction of the Tamil Nadu
Urban Land Ceiling (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act 1999, as evidenced by the
Land Delivery Receipt. Therefore, it falls within the purview of the saving clause
provided under Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act 1999.

In a recent judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal

No.2749/2023 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.7510/2023, arising out of S.L.P.
(Civil) D.No.23608/2021), it was observed:
"12. The issue as to what is meant by 'possession of the land by the State after
its acquisition' has also been considered by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority's case (supra). It is opined
therein that after the acquisition of land and passing of the award, the land vests
in the State free from all encumbrances. The vesting of land with the State is
with possession. Any person retaining the possession thereafter has to be
treated as a trespasser. When a large chunk of land is acquired, the State is not
supposed to put some person or police force to retain possession and start
cultivating on the land until it is utilized. The Government is also not supposed to
start residing or physically occupying the same once the process of acquisition is
complete. If, after the process of acquisition is complete and the land vests in
the State free from all encumbrances with possession, any person retaining the

6
land or any re-entry made by any person is nothing else but trespass on the
State land. Relevant paragraphs 244, 245, and 256 are extracted below."

The possession of the lands situated in S.Nos. 50/10, Noombal Village, and in
S.Nos. 50/3A, 48/6, etc., of Anaikattucherry Village, which vested with the
Government, is preserved by the authority of the respective Section 11(3)
Notifications published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. These lands
represent highly valuable government assets and may be essential for future
allotment purposes to government departments or undertakings such as
TNUHDB (formerly TNSCB), TNHB, TNPHC, etc. Additionally, they may be
allocated for the construction of buildings intended for various government
offices. The reinstatement of such valuable lands to the former Urban Land
Owners could undermine the efficacy of the Innocent Buyers' Scheme, through
which the government has generated revenue since 2008.

In view of the aforesaid contentions made hereinabove, I am of the

considered legal opinion that this is a fit case for filing Writ Appeal.

ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL

OFTAMIL NADU
(CO-ORDINATION)