Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

T.K. Singaram v. Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal

Madras High Court

Jan 22, 1991

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Case Information

CITATION CODES

citation codes

CASE NO.

Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1988 and Writ Petition No. 6390 of 1987., Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1988—, W.P No. 6390 of 1987—

Attorney(S)

Mr. G. Narayanan, for K.V Prakash and K. Gopal for Appellants/Petitioner.

Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondents 2 and 3.

JUDGES

Dr. A.S Anand, C.J

Raju, J.

ACTS

S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961.

S. 43 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act provides thus:43. Act

S. 43 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Urban Land Ceiling Act

S. 11A by Act 68 of 1984, in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

provision similar to S. 43 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act

Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act, 1961

Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894, in terms of S. 11A,

LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894

provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act

Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894

LAND ACQUISITION AMENDMENT ACT 1984

S. 9(4) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act

section, the Urban Land Ceiling Act

S. 43 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act.

S. 4(1) or the Land Acquisition Act

S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act

S. 7 of the Land Acquisition Act,

Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act

Urban Land Ceiling Act

LAND ACQUISITION ACT

Land Ceiling Act.

Land Reforms Act

See more information ... Less ...

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment disposes of Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1988 (directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2553 of 1981 decided on 21-3-1988) and also considers Writ Petition No. 6390 of 1987.

The relief claimed in Writ Petition No. 2553 of 1981 sought quashing of order D. Dis. 23367/79 dated 22-3-81 and a direction restraining respondents from proceeding pursuant to that order.

The relief claimed in Writ Petition No. 6390 of 1987 sought quashing of the notification issued under S. 7 of the Land Acquisition Act (published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 11-6-1986) insofar as it affected the petitioner and a direction restraining the respondent from proceeding further under the Land Acquisition Act.

The controversy relates to land measuring 11 grounds 2164 sq. ft. (equivalent to 2654 sq. metres) in T.S. No. 28/1, Ayanavaram village, Madras. Land acquisition proceedings for that land were initiated and were at the award enquiry stage when the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act (ULCA) came into force on 3-8-1976.

Under the ULCA, a notice under S. 9(4) was issued to the appellant on 11-11-1978; the appellant replied; an order under the ULCA was made on 20-4-1979; the appellant's appeal to the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal was dismissed on 22-3-1981. The appellant challenged that Tribunal order in Writ Petition No. 2553 of 1981, which was dismissed by the single Judge.

In Writ Petition No. 6390 of 1987 the appellant contended that by reason of the introduction of S. 11A into the Land Acquisition Act by Act 68 of 1984, and because the Collector had failed to make an award within the statutory period, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the pendency of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act can prevent or affect proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act once the ULCA applies to the land.
Whether, following the insertion of S. 11A by Act 68 of 1984 into the Land Acquisition Act, the failure of the Collector to make an award within the prescribed period results in lapse of the land acquisition proceedings for the land in question.
Whether both the ULCA (by virtue of its overriding provision) and the procedural time limit introduced by S. 11A operate to cause the land acquisition proceedings to cease for the land declared excess under the ULCA.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant argued that the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, which were already pending and at the award enquiry stage when the ULCA came into force, should have been taken to logical completion because the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act would be more favourable than that under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
The appellant relied on the decision in State v. Narendra Dairy Farms (reported as A.I.R. 1987 Mad. 161 = 99 L.W. 1074) to support the contention that the Government could not drop acquisition proceedings and resort to acquisition under ceiling legislation where acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act had been initiated earlier.
In Writ Petition No. 6390 of 1987 the appellant further argued that S. 11A (inserted by Act 68 of 1984) required the Collector to make an award within two years from the date of publication of the declaration (or as adjusted by the proviso), and since no award was made within the prescribed period, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State v. Narendra Dairy Farms (P) Ltd., A.I.R 1987 Mad. 161 = 99 L.W 1074	The decision, in the context of initiation of acquisition proceedings before the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act, 1961, held that the Government cannot drop proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and resort to ceiling proceedings because compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is more beneficial to the landowner.	The court observed that, at first blush, the decision supported the appellant's position in Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1988. However, the court held that the Division Bench did not advert to the overriding effect of the ceiling Act's provision (S. 4 in that Act / S. 43 in the ULCA), and therefore declined to apply the ratio of that decision to the present case because S. 43 of the ULCA gives the ULCA overriding effect over other laws.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeds in two parts corresponding to the two matters before it.

On Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1988 / Writ Petition No. 2553 of 1981:

The court emphasized S. 43 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act which states: "The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a court, tribunal or other authority." The section was reproduced and its plain overriding effect was highlighted.
Given the overriding language of S. 43, the court held that the ULCA must be given full play and any proceedings pending on the date the ULCA came into force would have to cease to the extent the ULCA applies to those proceedings and to the declaration of excess land.
The court considered the appellant's reliance on State v. Narendra Dairy Farms but noted that the Division Bench in that case did not consider the effect of the comparable overriding provision (S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act) on the Land Acquisition Act proceedings. The present court concluded that, had that provision been considered, the outcome might have been different.
Accordingly, the court concluded that the learned single Judge correctly held that the pendency of Land Acquisition Act proceedings could not affect the proceedings under the ULCA. The action of the State in not pursuing acquisition proceedings in view of the ULCA provisions was not open to question, and authorities under the ULCA could proceed against those covered by the ULCA.

On Writ Petition No. 6390 of 1987:

The court set out the chronology in the record: notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued 14-9-1972 (published 11-10-1972); declaration under S. 6 made on 3-7-1975 after S.5-A enquiry and published 23-7-1975. The award enquiry was in progress when the ULCA came into force on 3-8-1976.
S. 11-A (introduced by Act 68 of 1984) requires the Collector to make an award under S. 11 within two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and provides that if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings shall lapse. A proviso addresses proceedings where the declaration had been published before commencement of the Amendment Act (i.e., before 24-9-1984): in such cases the award shall be made within two years from the commencement of the Amendment Act.
The Explanation to S. 11-A excludes from computation of the two-year period any period during which any action or proceeding pursuant to the declaration is stayed by an order of a court.
In the instant case there was no court order staying action pursuant to the declaration under S. 6. Therefore, the court applied the proviso and computed the two-year period from the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (stated in the opinion as 24-9-1984), and observed (per the text) that "computing the period of two years from the commencement ... that is from 24-9-1984 the award was required to be made on or before 24-9-1984." (This statement is recorded in the opinion as rendered.)
Admittedly no award had been made to date. The court held that the effect of this inaction is that the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land shall lapse under S. 11-A.
Further, independently, under S. 43 of the ULCA the land acquisition proceedings would cease with effect from the date the ULCA came into force in respect of land declared excess thereunder. Thus, on both counts the acquisition proceedings for the land in T.S. No. 28/1 shall lapse.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

With respect to Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1988 (challenging the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 2553 of 1981), the court DISMISSED the appeal and held that the single Judge's conclusion that pendency of Land Acquisition Act proceedings could not affect proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act was correct.
With respect to Writ Petition No. 6390 of 1987, the court ordered that the land acquisition proceedings for T.S. No. 28/1 shall lapse: the petition was allowed in those terms.

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: The action of the State in not pursuing acquisition proceedings in view of the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act is upheld; the acquisition proceedings for the specified land are held to have lapsed (both under S. 11-A as introduced and under S. 43 of the ULCA insofar as the ULCA applied).
No order as to costs was made in either Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1988 or Writ Petition No. 6390 of 1987.
The opinion does not assert the setting of a new broad precedent beyond the application of the statutory provisions in the facts of this case; its reasoning rests on the statutory overriding effect of S. 43 of the ULCA and the procedural lapse provision under S. 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act as introduced by Act 68 of 1984.

KA/RR/VCS

Show all summary ...

1. The judgment will dispose of Writ appeal No. 591 of 1988 which is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2553 of 1981 decided on 21st March, 1988 and Writ petition No. 6390 of 1987 Before dealing with the two cases, it would be desirable to notice the relief claimed by the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1988, in the Writ petition No. 2553 of 1981 as well as the relief claimed (sic). Writ Petition No. 2553 of 1981 is as follows:

“For the reasons set out in the affidavit of the petitioner herein it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for all records connected with order D. Dis. 23367/79 dated 22-3-81 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal by issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to forbear from taking any further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order D. Dis. 2336/79 dated 22-3-81 sought to be quashed.”

The relief claimed in Writ petition No. 6390 of 1987 is as follows:

“For the reasons set out in the affidavit of the petitioner, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the notification issued under S. 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, published under the heading “Housing and Urban Development Department” at page 4 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part II S. 2 (Supplement) dated 11-6-1986 to acquire the petitioner's land in T.S No. 28/1, Block No. 30, Ayanavaram village, Madras and issue a writ of certiorarified or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the same in so far as it affects the petitioner in the interests of justice and forbear the respondent from proceeding further under the Land Acquisition Act”.

2. The controversy in both the cases revolves round land measuring 11 grounds 2164 sq. ft. which is equivalent to 2654 sq. metre in T.S No. 28/1, in Ayanavaram village, Madras, Land Acquisition proceedings were commenced for acquisition of 2654 sq. metres of land. While the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were pending and were at the award enquiry stage, Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act came into force on 3-8-1976. Notice was issued to the appellant under S. 9(4) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act on 11-11-1978. The appellant submitted his reply to the notice whereafter an order under the Urban Land Ceiling Act Came to be made on 20th of April, 1979. The appellant questioned the order by an appeal, and the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 22-3-1981. The order of the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal was called in question in Writ Petition No. 2553 of 1981 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge.

3. So far as Writ Petition No. 6390 of 1987 is concerned, the case projected by the appellant as canvassed at the Bar is that after the coming into force of the Urban Land Ceiling Act as well as by the amendment, by introduction of S. 11A by Act 68 of 1984, in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since the Collector had failed to make an award within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894, in terms of S. 11A, the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act had lapsed.

4. From a perusal of the record we find that on the date when the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act were commenced, the land acquisition proceedings were already pending. According to the learned counsel the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act should have been taken to the logical completion as canvassed in Writ petition No. 2553 of 1981, since better compensation would be available to the appellant under the Land Acquisition Act as compared to under the Land Ceiling Act. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel in support of his submission to State v. Narendra Dairy Farms . A.I.R 1987 Mad. 161=99 L.W 1074., wherein, while considering the initiation of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act before the coming into force of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act, 1961 it has been held that the Government cannot drop the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and resort to acquisition under the ceiling proceedings under the Land Reforms Act because the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act is more beneficial so far as the person whose lands are sought to be acquired is concerned.

5. The judgment reported in State v. Narendra Dairy Farms (P) Ltd., on the first blush does support the case of the appellant in so far as Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1988 is concerned. That judgment, however, in our opinion, cannot advance the case of the appellant S. 43 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act provides thus:

“43. Act to override other laws: The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a court, tribunal or other authority”

As would be seen from a plain reading of the section, the Urban Land Ceiling Act overrides the other laws for the time being in force or any custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a court, tribunal or other authority. In view of S. 43 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Urban Land Ceiling Act has to be given a full play and any proceedings which are pending on the date when the Urban Land Ceiling Act comes into force would have to cease in case the Urban Land Ceiling Act applies to those proceedings, to the extent of such application and declaration of the excess land. A provision similar to S. 43 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act is available in S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act, 1961. The Division Bench in State v. Narendra Dairy Farms (P) Ltd., however, did not advert to the effect of S. 4 on the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. It appears that the provisions of S. 4 were not brought to the notice of the learned Division Bench, for, had the same been brought to its notice, the overriding effect of S. 4 could not have been ignored and the judgment would then perhaps have been different. We, therefore, do not find it possible to apply the ratio laid down in State v. Narendra Dairy Farms (P) Ltd., to the present case in view of S. 43 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The learned single Judge therefore, while deciding Writ Petition No. 2553 of 1981 rightly arrived at the conclusion that the pendency of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act could not in any way affect the proceedings taken under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Thus, for the additional ground that we have referred to above based on the interpretation of S. 43 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2553 of 1981 calls for no interference and we hold that the action of the State in not pursuing the acquisition proceedings at any point of time in view of the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act is not open to question nor could the authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Act be denied of their powers to proceed against those covered under the Act. Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1988 consequently must fail and is hereby dismissed.

6. So far as Writ Petition No. 6390 of 1987 is concerned, we have already reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the writ petition. The notification under S. 4(1) or the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 14-9-1972 and the same was published on 11-10-1972. The declaration thereafter under S. 6 of the Act was made on 3-7-1975 after S. 5-A enquiry It was published in the gazette on 23-7-1975. While the award enquiry was on, the Urban Land Ceiling Act came into force with effect from 3-8-1976. S. 11-A was introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Act 68 of 1984. That section provides that the Collector shall make an award under S. 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. A proviso has been added to S. 11-A to take care of those proceedings which were pending on the date the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894 came into force with effect from 24-9-1984. It has provided that in case where the declaration had been published before the commencement of the Amendment Act, that is before 24-9-1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. The Explanation to S. 11-A provides that in computing the period of two years, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded. In the instant case no order of stay was made by the Court staying action pursuant to the declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, computing the period of two years from the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, that is from 24-9-1984 the award was required to be made on or before 24-9-1984. Admittedly no award has been made till date. The effect of this inaction on the part of the respondents is that the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land shall lapse.

7. That apart, even under S. 43 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the land acquisition proceedings would cease with effect from the date when the Urban Land Ceiling Act came into force in respect of the land declared excess thereunder. Thus, on both these counts the land acquisition proceedings initiated for the acquisition of the land in T.S No. 28/1 referred to above shall lapse. The writ petition, consequently has to be ordered in those terms and is so ordered.

8. There shall, however, be no order as to costs either in Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1938 or in Writ Petition No. 6390 of 1987.

KA/RR/VCS