The appellant challenged the refusal to release property acquired under land ceiling laws, claiming possession was never handed over to the State and thus proceedings lapsed under the Repeal Act. The Court found that possession was taken by the Revenue Department in 1981 and compensation was received, rejecting the claim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WA No.1713 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.01.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
WA No.1713 of 2021
MTS Raghavan (Deceased) Ms.Amrit Malini Raghavan (Substituted as L.R. as per order dated 2.3.2015 in MP.No.1/2015 in WP.No.9103/2009)
.. Appellant
-vs-
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.9103 of 2009.
For the Appellant : Mr.N.Viswanathan For the Respondents : Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Govt. Advocate * * * * *
Page 1 of 8
JUDGMENT
WA No.1713 of 2021
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.N.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Page 2 of 8
WA No.1713 of 2021
encumbrances and the entire acquisition proceedings would stand vitiated. The first respondent, on 23.10.2008, dropped the proceedings. Subsequently, the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Land Reforms, the second respondent, on 16.03.2009 observed that the Repeal Act would not affect the land vested with the Government and the possession of the land has been handed over to the Revenue Department. Hence, the endorsement issued was cancelled. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition. The same is negatived.
Page 3 of 8
WA No.1713 of 2021
available to the appellant/original petitioner. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Hari Ram reported in 2013 (4) SCC 280 and also several judgments of this Court, to buttress his submission that in view of the Repeal Act, if possession has not been taken by the authorities, then the proceedings would lapse and the appellant/petitioner would be entitled for the said land.
Page 4 of 8
WA No.1713 of 2021
the compensation to be fixed by the Government provided the compensation is adequate and reasonable. It is not disputed that the petitioner's father had accepted the compensation. The land to an extent of 2304 sq. meters was declared as surplus land. It further appears that the petitioner and his father were not present in the house, as such the possession was taken over by the concerned revenue officer on 26.02.1981. Endorsement to that effect is available in the original file. It further appears that possession was handed over to the Revenue Department and the Revenue Department, in turn, handed over the possession to the Social Welfare department under G.O.Ms.No.1466, Revenue Department, dated 26.08.1982.
WA No.1713 of 2021
statement under Section 9(1), notice under Section 9(4) was issued to the urban land owner and final notice under Section 10(1) of the Act was also issued to the land owner on 12.07.1979. The land owner also acknowledged the said notice on 20.07.1979. After the issuance of notification under Sections 11(1), 11(3) and notice under Section 11(5), the land has been handed over to the Revenue Department on 26.02.1981. The land owner has received the compensation under Section 12(6) of the Act upto 15 instalments.
was never in possession of the property on the relevant date. In light of that, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge.
Page 6 of 8
WA No.1713 of 2021
The writ appeal as such is disposed of. There shall be no order
as to costs.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 05.01.2024 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sra
To
Page 7 of 8
WA No.1713 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
(sra)
WA No.1713 of 2021
05.01.2024
Page 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquisition proceedings lapsed under the Repeal Act when physical possession was not taken by the State?
Whether the order dropping proceedings and subsequent refusal to release land was passed in violation of natural justice?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of U.P. vs. Hari RamReferred¶32
State of U.P. vs. Hari Ram reported in 2013 (4) SCC 280 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MTS Raghavan (Deceased) Ms. Amrit Malini Raghavan
The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of ULC & ULT
The Principal Secretary, Commissioner of Land Reforms
Sanjay V. Gangapurwal
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
