| CITATION AIR 2022 SCC 233 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT 28th June, 2018 |
| COURT – HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| PETITIONER MRS. P. CHANDRIKA |
| RESPONDENT THE COMMISSIONER OF URBAN LAND CEILING AND URBAN LAND TAX |
| BENCH DIVISION BENCH : K.K. SASIDHARAN,J. : P. VELMURUGAN,J. |
INTRODUCTION
The case, “Mrs. P.Chandrika V/S The Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land tax, 2022” revolves around an ancestral land property dispute between the members of a family regarding its partition.
Accordingly the partition was executed via a partition deed. Subsequently, it was found that the land was entangled with the urban land ceiling and urban land tax department authorities. The disputable property was encroached upon by the urban land ceiling authorities without providing any adequate notice or procedure. In defiance, the landowner filed a writ petition to quash the entire procedure in respect of the estate. Subsequently the order was passed in petitioner’s favour, challenging which the respondents filed a writ appeal before the division bench of high court of madras. In the instant case, the court laid emphasis on the significance of service of notice by the government authorities before execution of any government action and appropriate action to be taken by them.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the instant case, one Ranga Naicker was the owner of a land, acquired by him through partition of the ancestral land property executed between him and his brothers. Following the death of Ranga, his only son, Venkitasamy Naiker became the successor of his property. Venkitasamy retained some portion of the property and executed a will deed in favour of his son, V. Gopalkrishnan, with regard to the remaining property. A dispute was going on between Venkitasamy and his sisters. After his death, a civil suit was filed by his sisters against V. Gopalkrishnan with regard to the land property. And meanwhile the pendency of the suit Gopalakrishnan died and the suit got transferred in his wife’s name, Mrs. P. Chandrika, who was a retired school teacher.
After the suit was decided in her favour, she obtained the certified copy of the decree and approached the village administrative officer for the transfer of patta. But after two years, she came to know that the land property had been acquired by the urban land ceiling department authorities and she approached the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Coimbatore, requesting him to release the property as neither any notice, prior to the encroachment was served to her nor did she receive any compensation in lieu of the acquisition under section 11(1) and section 11(5) of the The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1976. But no action was taken.
She then filed a writ petition for quashing the proceedings executed in respect of the estate as it was conducted without service of any notice or payment of compensation and she still remains to be in its possession . On this the writ petition was allowed.
ISSUES RAISED
1) Whether notice was served by the concerned authorities or not.
2) Whether compensation was paid after acquisition of the land or not.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
1) The petitioner contended before the court that notice was neither served to Mrs. P. Chandrika nor to her husband or anyone concerned with the land under section 11 (1) and section 11(5) of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act ,1976, prior to acquisition of the estate.
Moreover, she still continues to hold the physical possession of the land because de jure possession on the land was acquired by the authorities but de facto possession still remains to exist with her. Furthermore, the petitioner relied upon a case of Honourable Supreme Court, Gajanan Kamlya Patil v/s Additional Collector and Competent Authority and Others, in which the court upheld that if possession is not held in accordance with the law then it is merely a de jure possession and it does not give any right with regard to any further action to be taken on the property.Therefore, she applied
for the release of the land before the appropriate authority, that is, Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Coimbatore.
2) The petitioner submitted that no appropriate compensation, stipulated under section 11 and section 14 of The Act was paid to her or any other person concerned with the land, despite payment of the entire urban land tax due, by her. Above all when she applied for the release of the land the petition was rejected without assigning any valid reason.
CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT
1) According to the submission of the respondents, a due inquiry on the land was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Tax) only after which possession on the land was acquired. And subsequent to which notice had been duly served to the petitioner’s father-in-law. Later, another notice was served to her husband but it was not received by him but instead one of his family members with the name, Palaniammal. Furthermore, another notification was published in the official gazette.
2) The respondents contended that so far the question of compensation is concerned it was not directly paid to any of the erstwhile owners or the petitioner herself but was deposited in the treasury by means of a cheque of Rs.14,042/-, which was later on transferred to government’s account.
JUDGEMENT
1) The court held that accurate notice had not been served to the appropriate owners of the property under section 11(1) and section 11 (5) of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act ,1976. There is no conflict as to the question of ownership of the estate because after the death of the petitioner’s husband, she is the successor of the property by virtue of being the legal heir. So accordingly notice had been sent to her but it was sent to a third party which cannot be said to be a valid notice. Furthermore, non service of notice is in contravention to the principles of natural justice as due process of law had not been complied with.
So far the question of possession on the land is concerned, it is a sine qua non and if only de jure possession was acquired and de facto possession
still remains to exist with the petitioner then all the proceedings or any action taken in furtherance of such possession is void.
2) The court held that the possession on the land held by the concerned authorities is not actual physical possession since it was not in accordance with the procedures of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act ,1976 so accordingly the further proceedings are said to be vitiated.
CONCLUSION
In the instant case a land property was acquired by the concerned authorities otherwise than in accordance with the legal procedures which ultimately is the sheer violation and contempt of law. Therefore, the case sets a significant precedent regarding the vital role of principal of natural justice and the significance of complying with the provisions of law and legal principle.
REFERENCES
1) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124788648/
2) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95485339/
This article is written by Nandini Sharma, student of Shambhunath Institute of Law, intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
