T.k. Singaram v. The Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal, Chepauk, Madras-5 And Others

Dr. A.S. Anand, CJ.

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

For the reasons set out in the affidavit of the petitioner herein it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to call for all records connected with order D.Dis.23367/79, 22.3.1981 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal by issuance writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appro-priate writ or order and direct respondents 1 and 2 to forbear from taking any further proceedings pursuant impugned, order D.Dis.23367/79, dated 22.3.1981 sought to be quashed.

The relief claimed in W.P.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 Sec.7 the Land Acquisition Act, published under the heading Housing and Urban Development Department, at page 4 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part II Sec.2 (Supplement) dated 11.6.1986 to acquire the petitioners 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 direction quashing the same in so far as it affects the petitioner in the interests of and forbear the respondent from proceeding further under the Land Acquisition Act.

2. The controversy in both the cases revolves round land measuring 2 grounds, 2,164 which is equivalent to 2,654 sq. mt. in T.S.No.28/1, in Ayanavaram village, Madras. Acquisition proceedings were commenced for acquisition of 2654 sq. metres of land the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were pending and were at the award stage. Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act came into force on 3.8.1976. Notice was issued the appellant under Sec.9(4) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act on 11.11.1978. The appellant submitted his reply to the whereafter an order under the Urban Land Ceiling Act came to be made on 20th 1979. The appellant questioned the order by an appeal, and the Urban Land Ceiling dismissed the appeal on 22.3.1981. The order of the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal was in question in W.P.No.2553 of 1981 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge.

3. So far as W.P.No.6390 of 1987 is concerned, the case projected by the appellant canvassed at the Bar is that after the coming into force of the Urban Land Ceiling Act as by the amendment, by introduction of Sec.11-A 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 the date of commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894, in Sec.11-A, 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 Urban Land Ceiling Act were commenced, the land acquisition proceedings were pending. According to the learned counsel the proceedings under the Land Acquisition should have been taken to the logical completion as canvassed in W.P.No.2553 of since better compensation would be available to the appellant under the Land Acquisition as compared to under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Reliance has been placed by the counsel in support of his submission to State v. Narendra Dairy Farms, A.I.R. 1987 Mad. 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 Act, 1961 it has been held that the Government cannot drop the proceedings under the Acquisition Act and resort to acquisition under the ceiling proceedings under the Reforms Act because the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act 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) Limited, A.I.R. 1987 161, on the first blush does support the case of the appellant in so far as W.A.No.591 19,88 is concerned. That judgment, however, in our opinion, cannot advance the case appellant. Sec.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 usage or agreement or decree of order of a court, tribunal or other authority. As would be seen from a plain reading of the section, the Urban Land Ceiling Act the other laws for the time being in force or any custom, usage or agreement or decree order of a court, tribunal or other authority. In view of Sec.43 of the Urban Land Ceiling the Urban Land Ceiling Act has to be given a full play and any proceedings which are on the date when the Urban Land Ceiling Act comes into force would have to cease the Urban Land Ceiling Act applies to those proceedings, to the extent of such application declaration of the excess land. A provision similar to Sec.43 of the Urban Land Ceiling available in Sec.4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, The Division Bench in State v. Narendra Dairy Farms (P) Ltd., A.I.R 1987 Mad. 161, [LQ/MadHC/1986/363] did not advert to the effect of Sec.4 on the proceedings under the Land Acquisition appears that the provisions of Sec.4 were not brought to the notice of the learned Bench for, had the same been brought to its notice, the overriding effect of Sec.4 could have been ignored and the judgment would then perhaps been different. We, therefore, not find it possible to apply the ratio laid down in State v. Narendra Dairy Farms A.I.R. 1987 Mad. 161, [LQ/MadHC/1986/363] to the present case in view of Sec.43 of the Urban Land Ceiling The learned single Judge therefore, while deciding W.P.No.2553 of 1981 rightly arrived conclusion that the pendency of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act could any way affect the proceedings taken under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Thus, additional ground that we have referred to above based on the interpretation of Sec.43 Urban Land Ceiling Act, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned single W.P.No.2553 of 1981 calls for no interference and we hold that the action of the State pursuing the acquisition proceedings at any point of time in view of the provisions Urban Land Ceiling Act is not open to question nor could the authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Act be their powers to proceed against those covered under the. W.A.No.591 consequently must fail and is hereby dismissed.

6. So far as W.P.No.6390 of 1987 is concerned, we have already reproduced in the part of this judgment the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the writ petition. notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 14.9.1972 same was published on 11.10.1972. The declaration thereafter under Sec.6 of the made on 3.7.1975 after Sec.5-A enquiry. It was published in the gazette on 23.7.1975. The award enquiry was on, the Urban Land Ceiling Act came into force with effect 3.8.1976. Sec.11-A was introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Act 68 of 1984. Section provides that the Collector shall make an award under Sec.11 within a period years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. A proviso added to Sec.11-A to take care of those proceedings which were pending on the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 came into force with effect from 24.9.1984. provided that in case where the declaration had been published before the commencement the Amendment Act, that is before 24.9.1984, the award shall be made within a two years from such commencement. The explanation to Sec.11-A provides computing the period of two years, the period during which any action or proceeding taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a court shall be In the instant case no order of stay was made by the Court staying action pursuant declaration under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, computing the two years from the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 from 24.9.1984 the award was required to be made on or before 23.9.1986. Admittedly award has been made till date. The effect of this inaction on the part of the respondents that the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land shall lapse.

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

8. There shall, however, be no order as to costs either in W.A.No.591 of 1988 W.P.No.6390 of 1987.

Petition allowed and Appeal dismissed.