2021 INSC 0545
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5881 OF 2010
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.                ...          APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M.S. VISWANATHAN & ORS.                      ...     RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5885 OF 2010
J U D G M E N T
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu and the officials in the Department
of   Urban   Land   Ceiling   have   come   up   with   the   above   appeals
challenging,  (i)  an order of the Division Bench of the Madras High
Court   dismissing   an   intra­court   appeal;   and   (ii)   the   subsequent
order   of   the   Division   Bench   refusing   to   condone   the   delay   in
seeking review of the original order.

2
2. We have heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel
for   the   appellant­State,   Mr.   E.C.   Agrawala,   learned   counsel
appearing   for   the   respondents   and   Capt.   R.   Balasubramanian,
learned senior counsel for the party seeking intervention.
3. The   Tamil   Nadu   Urban   Land   (Ceiling   and   Regulation)   Act,
1978 ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ ) came into force partly on
28.03.1978   and   was   deemed   to   have   come   into   force   partly   on
03.08.1976.   One   Smt.   Nagarathinam   Ammal   wife   of   Sambanda
Mudaliar,   residing   at   No.29,   Appu   Mudali   Street,   Mylapore,
Chennai­4, who owned two parcels of land, one measuring 2428
sq.mts   in   survey   No.279/2   and   another   measuring   7810   sq.mts
in  Survey   No.279/5 in  Kottivakkam  Village, filed a return  under
Section 6(1) of the Act on 20.09.1976. Thereafter, she applied for
exemption under Section 19 of the Act on 26.02.1977 in respect
of the excess vacant land, but the Government turned down the
request vide letter dated 10.01.1978.
4. A   draft   statement   under   Section   9(1)   of   the   Act   was
prepared   by   the   3 rd
  appellant,   indicating   that   the   total   extent   of
vacant   land   owned/held   by   Nagarathinam   Ammal   was   10238

3
sq.mts  and  that   after  deducting  the  ceiling  area  of  3500  sq.mts,
she   was   required   to   surrender   the   excess   vacant   land   of   6738
sq.mts.     This   draft   statement   under   Section   9(1)   was   served   on
the   owner   along   with   a   notice   under   Section   9(4)   dated
07.04.1979.   The   said   notice   under   Section   9(4)   was   received   by
Nagarathinam  Ammal on 18.04.1979 and she filed a petition for
reconsideration   of   the   order   of   rejection   regarding   exemption   on
16.05.1979.   But   the   said   petition   was   rejected   on   06.11.1979
and   orders   were   passed   under   Section   9(5)   of   the   Act   on
31.03.1980.
5. A final statement was issued under Section 10(1) of the Act
on   01.04.1980,   followed   by   notifications   under   Section   11(1)
dated   09.05.1980   and   Section   11(3)   dated   03.10.1980.   The
notification under  Section  11(1) was also published in the Tamil
Nadu Government Gazette dated 21.05.1980, and Nagarathinam
Ammal was directed to surrender or deliver vacant possession of
excess land measuring 6750 sq.mts.
6. By   a   letter   dated   11.11.1980   Nagarathinam   Ammal
intimated the 3 rd
 appellant and the District Collector that she was
surrendering   the   land   and   she   requested   for   payment   of

4
compensation.   Under   a   land   delivery   receipt   dated   18.02.1981,
Nagarathinam Ammal also handed over the possession.
7. Thereafter,   a   notice   dated   03.03.1981   under   Section   12(7)
was   issued   to   her,   calling   upon   her   to   appear   for   an   enquiry   to
show the share of the compensation payable to her under Section
12.   It   appears   that   as   per   the   scheme   of   the   Act,   the
compensation was determined and paid to Nagarathinam Ammal
in 15 instalments.
8. The   Government   then   issued   an   order   in   G.O.MS.   No.147
Revenue   dated   25.01.1982   allotting   the   excess   vacant   land   of
6750 sq.mts to the Madras Snake Park Trust ( hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Trust ’), with a mandate that the Trust should develop a
snake   park   on   modern   lines   within   two   years.   The   Collector   of
Chengalpattu,   was   directed   to   handover   physical   possession   to
the   trust   and   the   Trust   was   called   upon   to   pay   a   sum   of
Rs.2,90,000/­.
9. It appears that after several extentions of time to the Trust,
the   Trust   surrendered   the   land   back   to   the   Government   on   the
ground  that  they   were  unable  to   carry  out   the  desired  objective.

5
Upon coming to know of the surrender of the land, the Principal
Chief   Conservator   of   Forests   requested   the   Government   by   a
letter   dated   02.09.1998   to   allot   the   land   to   the   Forest
Department   in   view   of   the   fact   that   the   original   allottee,   namely
the   Trust,   was   actually   functioning   already   from   a   forest   land
and   that   therefore   the   land   in   question   could   be   used   by   the
forest   Department   for   the   establishment   of   an   Urban   Nursery
Ecological   and   Awareness   Centre.   Accordingly,   the   Government
issued   G.O.MS.   No.   297   Revenue   dated   08.07.2002,   cancelling
the   allotment   made   in   favour   of   the   Snake   Park   Trust   and
allotting the same to the forest Department. It was mentioned in
the   Government   Order   that   the   allotment   of   the   land   to   the
Forest   Department   was   made   along   with   the   compound   wall
enclosing the land.
10. In   the   meantime,   the   Act   was   repealed   through   the   Tamil
Nadu   Urban   Land   (Ceiling   and   Regulation)   Repeal   Act,   1999
( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Repeal Act’ ).   It came into force on
16.06.1999.  Section 3 of the said Repeal Act contained a savings
clause which reads as follows:­
“ 3. Savings  – (1) the repeal of the principal Act shall not affect­

6
(a)   the   vesting   of   any   vacant   land   under   sub­section   (3)   of
section   10,   possession   of   which   has   been   taken   over   by   the
State Government or any person duly authorised by the  State
Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; 
(b)   the   validity   of   any   order   granting   exemption   under   sub­
section   (1)of   section   20   or   any   action   taken   therunder,
notwithstanding any judgment of any Court to the contrary;
(c) any payment made to the State Government as a condition
for granting exemption under sub­section (1) of section 20. 
(2)Where­ 
(a) any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government
under   sub­section   (3)   of   section   10   of   the   principal   Act   but
possession   of   which   has   not   been   taken   over   by   the   State
Government   or   any   person   duly   authorised   by   the   State
Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; and 
(b)   any   amount   has   been   paid   by   the   State   Government   with
respect   to   such   land,   then,   such   land   shall   not   be   restored
unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the State
Government”
11. After   five   years   of   the   said   repeal,   the   three   sons   and   two
daughters   of   Nagarathinam   Ammal   joined   together   and   filed   a
writ   petition   in   Writ   Petition   No.39419   of   2004,   seeking   a
declaration that the entire proceedings under the Act followed by
the allotment in favour of the Trust and the re­allotment in favour
of  the   Forest   Department   are   void   ab   initio   in   view   of   the   Repeal
Act. It appears that the writ petition was filed in December, 2004.
12. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge
of   the   High   Court   by   an   order   dated   24.06.2005,   on   the   short
ground   that   as   per   the   Inspection   Report   of   the   competent

7
authority   dated   05.11.1996   and   the   Inspection   Report   of   the
Assistant Commissioner dated 20.01.2005, the acquired land was
still lying vacant enclosed by a compound wall and that therefore
the   claim   of   the   writ   petitioners   that   possession   was   not   taken
over, must be taken to be true.  
13. Challenging the order of the Ld. Single Judge, the appellants
herein   filed   an   intra­court   appeal   in   W.A.No.2087   of   2005.   The
said   appeal   was   dismissed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court   by   an   order   dated   26.10.2005,   again   on   the   basis   of   the
Inspection   Report   of   the   Assistant   Commissioner   dated
20.01.2005 to  the  effect that  the land  was  lying  vacant and  that
therefore,   finding   recorded   by   the   Ld.   Single   Judge   regarding
possession must be taken to be correct.
14. The   appellants   filed   an   application   for   review   along   with   a
petition   for   condonation   of   the   delay   of   113   days   in   filing   the
review   application.   The   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court,   by   its
order dated 26.04.2006 dismissed the application for condonation
of delay, on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the
condonation of  delay.

8
15. Challenging   the   refusal   of   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court   to   condone   the   delay   in   filing   the   review   petition,   the
appellants   have   come   up   with   Civil   Appeal   No.5881   of   2010.
Challenging   the   substantial   order   passed   in   the   intra­court
appeal on 26.10.2005, the appellants have come up with the next
appeal namely Civil Appeal No.5885 of 2010.
16. Since   Civil   Appeal   No.5885   of   2010   challenges   the   original
order   passed   in   the   intra­court   appeal,   the   disposal   of   the   same
would decide the fate of Civil Appeal No.5881 of 2010.  Therefore,
we shall deal with Civil Appeal No.5885 of 2010, first.
17. We   have   already   extracted   Section   3   of   the   Repeal   Act.
Section   3   incorporates,   in   simple   terms,   two   rules.   They   are:   (i)
the   repeal   of   the   principal   Act   will   not   affect   the   vesting   of   any
vacant   land   under   Section   11(3),   if   the   possession   thereof   has
been taken over either by the State Government or by any person
duly   authorised   by   the   State   Government   or   by   the   competent
authority;   (ii)   but if the possession  of a land which  is deemed to
have vested in the State Government under Section 11(3), has not
been   taken   over   by   the   Government   or   the   competent   authority,
the  same  shall  be  restored to  the  person  in  respect  of whom  the

9
land was declared surplus, provided the amount paid by the State
Government   towards   compensation   has   been   refunded   to   the
State Government.
18. In   essence,   “ taking   over   possession ”   forms   the   lifeline   of
Section   3   of   the   Repeal   Act   and   a   person   seeking   the   benefit   of
the Repeal Act for restoration of the land should plead and prove
that possession was not taken over.
19. It   is   true   that   the   word   ‘ possession’   has   been   subjected   to
repeated   assaults   by   judicial   pronouncements   and   courts   have
considered   several   facets   of   possession   such   as   actual
possession,   physical   possession,   paper   possession,   symbolic
possession   etc.     But   fortunately   this   case   does   not   provide   any
room for display of any such semantic acrobatics. This is for the
reason   that   admittedly   by   her   own   letter   dated   11.11.1980,   the
land   owner   Nagarathinam   Ammal   voluntarily   surrendered   and
delivered   possession   pursuant   to   the   notice   under   Section   11(5)
of the Act dated 24.10.1980.
20. Today, the respondents, who are the sons and daughters of
Nagarathinam   Ammal,   cannot   go   beyond   the   contents   of   the

10
aforesaid letter dated 11.11.1980, as she admittedly passed away
on   26.10.1998,   even   before   the   Repeal   Act   was   enacted.   From
11.11.1980   till   her   death   in   1998,   Nagarathinam   Ammal   never
went back on the contents of the said letter. 
21. However,   a   valiant   attempt   was   made   Mr.   E.C.Agrawala,
learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   to   get   over   a   categorical
statement   regarding   surrender   of   possession   made   by   the   land
owner   herself   in   the   first   part   of   her   letter   dated   11.11.1980,   by
relying upon the last few lines of the very same letter. Though we
could   have   rejected   the   said   contention   outright   on   the   ground
that   after   the   death   of   the   author   of   the   letter,   her   legal   heirs
cannot   seek   to   interpret   it,   we   would   still   deal   with   the
contention.  Before we do  so, it  may  be useful  to  extract the  said
letter in entirety as follows:­
“In pursuance of instructions of Assistant Commissioner,
Urban   Land   (Ceiling   and   Regulations)   Act   1978   contained   in
the notice issued to me in form VII of the above Act regarding
the surrender and delivery of possession   of the excess vacant
land   acquitted   under   sub   section   3   of   section   11   of   the   same
act   of   1978.     I   surrender   and   deliver   possession   of   Re­survey
Nos.279/5B and 279/2B of 141 Kottivakkam of Saidapet taluk
as conceded by R.c. 3457/77 dated 24­10­1980 in the office of
Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Alandur.
Previously, I signed the subdivision statements in respect
of   these   lands   and   soon   after   a   notification   (G.O.   VI   (1)
497/80,   dated   9.5.80   was   issued   in   Tamil   Nadu   gazette
clarifying   the   details   of   Re­survey   Nos.   279/5B   and   279/2B.
On the strength of the aforesaid, I sold Re­survey Nos.279/5A
and   279/2A   to   the   Madras   Snake   Park   Trust   covered   by   the

11
sale deed registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Saidapet as
document   No.   1722   dated   29­5­1980   after   meticulously
following   the   prescribed   procedure   in   procuring   the
encumbrance   certificates   for the  entire  land  in  my  possession
and   also   the   income   tax   clearance   certificate.     I   handed   over
the   relevant   records   to   the   Secretary,   Madras   Snake   Park
Trust.
As   I   am   pressed   financially   on   account   of   domestic
difficulties, I make humble request to the competent authority
to   complete   the   acquisition   and   order   payment   of
compensation   based   on   the   prevailing   market   rate   and   rate
fixed in the aforesaid sale deed to Madras Snake Park Trust on
29­5­1980.
Since the present acquired land of 30 grounds and the 15
grounds   of   land   sold   by   me   to   the   Madras   Snake   Park   Trust
originally   formed   one   piece   of   land   encompassed   by   a   big
compound   wall,   with   gates,   I   have   left   the   keys   with   the
Secretary,   Madras   Snake   Park   Trust   for   purpose   of   safety.
Since   my   husband   is   very   sick   and   unable   to   move   about.     I
am not in a position to leave my house frequently.  The Madras
snake   Park   Trust   through   its   Hon.   Secretary   have   agreed   to
give the keys and show the relevant records whenever required
by you.”
22. Mr.   Agrawala,   learned   counsel,   sought   to   contend   that   a
mere   statement   that   the   keys   were   left   with   the   Trust   may   not
tantamount to delivery of possession. He places reliance upon the
decision of this Court in   Gajanan Kamlya Patil   vs.   Additional
Collector And Competent Authority (ULC) And Others 1
 
23. But we do not agree. A careful reading of the last paragraph
of   the   above   letter   would   show   that   the   land   owner   had   already
sold to the Snake Park Trust, a land adjoining the surplus land,
when both formed part of one large piece of land encompassed by
1   (2014) 12 SCC 523

12
a   big   compound   wall   with   the   gates.   Therefore,   she   had   left   the
keys with the Secretary of the same Trust, to which the acquired
land   was   also   first   allotted,   after   vesting   took   place   in   terms   of
Section   11(3).   There   was   no   indication   in   the   last   paragraph   to
retain   control   of   possession.   Actually   there   could   not   have   been
one in the teeth of the first paragraph of the letter.
24. The first paragraph of the above letter contains a categorical
statement   that   the   owner   was   surrendering   and   delivering
possession. She was merely asking for payment of compensation.
Therefore,   this   is   not   a   case   where   there   is   any   scope   for   word
play.
25. The   decision   in   Gajanan   Kamlya   Patil   (supra)   will   not   go
to   the   rescue   of   the   respondents,   as   there   was   no   voluntary
surrendering of possession in that case.  As noticed from the facts
of   that   case,   the   Repeal   Act   came   into   force   in   the   State   of
Maharashtra   on   01.12.2007.   A   notice   for   taking   possession   had
been issued on 17.02.2005. The notice itself was challenged after
the Repeat Act came into force. It was sought to be contended by
the   Government   of   Maharashtra   that   there   was   a   possession
receipt.   But it was dated subsequent to the repeal. In paragraph

13
11 of the judgment in  Gajanan Kamlya Patil  (supra), this Court
indicated   that   apart   from   the   affidavits   of   the   officials,   no   other
document was made available either to show that the land owner
had   voluntarily   surrendered   possession   or   to   show   that   the
officials had taken peaceful or forcible possession. Therefore, the
said decision is of no use to the respondents.  
26. Unfortunately,   the   High   Court   did   not   even   look   into   the
letter   dated   11.11.1980   nor   did   the   High   Court   examine   the
records  of the  Department.  Both  the Single Judge  as well as  the
Division Bench proceeded on the premise that the land was lying
vacant with a compound wall and that therefore, the claim of the
land owner to be in possession must be correct. There can hardly
be   any   such   presumption.   The   existence   of   the   compound   wall
enclosing   even   the   land   that   had   already   been   sold   by   the   land
owner  to  the  Trust, is  admitted  by  the  land  owner   herself in  her
letter   dated   11.11.1980.   Therefore,   the   High   Court   committed   a
grave error in granting the benefit of Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act
to the respondents herein.
27. There   is   one   more   reason   why   the   respondents   are   not
entitled to pursue their claim for restoration of possession under

14
the Repeal Act. According to the respondents themselves, as seen
from   their   pleading   in   I.A.No.1   of   2008   in   C.A.No.5881   of   2010,
they   executed   a   General   Power   of   Attorney   on   14.02.2005   in
favour of one S. Sundararaman. The said S. Sundararaman, has
come up with an application for impleadment in I.A.No.3 of 2009
in   C.A.No.5885   of   2010   claiming   that   he   is   a   property   developer
and   that   he   had   entered   into   an   unregistered   agreement   of   sale
on   14.02.2005   with   the   respondents.   The   said   Sundararaman,
has also claimed that he had paid the entire sale consideration of
Rs.75,00,000/­   (Seventy   Five   Lakhs   Only),   on   two   dates   namely
01.02.2006 and 10.02.2006.
28. It   must   be   remembered   that   the   writ   petition   seeking   the
benefit   of   the   Repeal   Act   was   filed   in   December   2004   and   the
learned  Single  Judge  allowed  the   writ  petition  by  an   order   dated
25.06.2005.   It   means   that   the   respondents   created   a   Power   of
Attorney   and   the   said   Sundararaman   claimed   to   have   entered
into an agreement for the purchase of the land, after the filing of
the   writ   petition   but   before   the   writ   petition   was   allowed.   These
facts were not brought to the notice of the High court.

15
29. Interestingly, the land owners claim in their I.A.No.1 of 2008
in   C.A.No.5881   of   2010   that   Sundararaman   had   also   mortgaged
the property  under  a registered deed for a consideration of Rs. 5
crores. The land owners now claim that they came to know about
the   mortgage   only   after   the   disposal   of   the   review   petition   and
that  therefore, they   cancelled  the Power   of Attorney   by   a deed  of
revocation dated 11/12.6.2007. Thereafter, the land owners claim
to   have   executed   a   fresh   Power   of   Attorney   on   11.02.2008   in
favour  of  another  realtor   by  name  NADI  Realtors, followed  by  an
agreement   of   sale   dated   31.03.2008   with   them.   All   these   events
have led to civil, criminal and arbitration proceedings between the
respondents   and   third   parties,   showing   thereby   that   there   is   a
concerted attempt by a group of realtors to grab the land already
vested   with   the   Government.   What   the   land   owners   and   the   2
third   parties   namely   Sundararaman   and   NADI   Realtors   have
actually done, is nothing but champerty and they are not entitled
to any relief from the court.
30. The reason why we have taken pains to point out the above
developments   is   that   the   land   owners   have   actually   parted   with
their   right   to   continue   the   litigation.   The   third   parties   are   mere

16
interlopers   and   they   have   no   right   to   question   the   proceedings
under the Act.
31. In view of the above, C.A.No.5885 of 2010 is allowed and the
judgment   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   as   well   as   the   Division
Bench are set aside and the writ petition of the respondents­land
owners is dismissed.
32. As   a   consequence,   no   orders   are   necessary   in   C.A.No.5881
of   2010   and   hence   it   is   closed.   All   applications   for   impleadment
are dismissed and the other applications also stand closed.
...................................J.
(Hemant Gupta)
...................................J.
(V. Ramasubramanian)
New Delhi
September 20, 2021