BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on: 10.12.2025

Pronounced on: 19.01.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

W.P.(MD).Nos.18082 and 24379 of 2018

W.P.(MD).No.18082 of 2018

V.Purushothaman .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu

rep by

The Principal Secretary,

Higher Education Department,

St' George Fort,

Secretariat,

Chennai-600009.

2.The Vice Chancellor,

Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,

Poompozil,

5, Dr.D.G.S.Dinakaran Salai,

Chennai 600 028.

3.The District Collector,

Office of the District Collector,

Trichy District.

1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.The Commissioner,

Office of the Commissioner,

Trichy Corporation,

Trichy.

5.The State of Tamilnadu,

rep by Secretary to Government,

Revenue Department, Fort St.George,

Chennai.

6.The Director of Legal Studies,

Office of the Director of Legal Studies,

Purusaivakkam, Chennai.

7.The Principal,

Trichy Government Law College,

Trichy.

8.M/s.Simco Engineering Limited

(Formerly Known as

M/s.Iskramemeco Seahorse Limited)

Rep by its

Authorised Signatory

Mr.L.Sekar,

Having its registered office

at No.126, K.Sathanoor Road,

Trichy.

R5 to R7 are impleaded vide Court Order dated 21.08.2018 in W.M.P.

(MD).No.16229 of 2018

R8 is impleaded vide order dated 19.09.2022.

.. Respondent/

Complainant

2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

PRAYER: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the

respondents to build Men's Hostel to the students of the Government Law

College, Thiruchirappalli, Trichy District within the time stipulated by this

Court.

For Petitioner: Mr.A.V.Saha for

Mr.R.Alagumani

For Respondent: Mr.R.Baskaran

Additional Advocate General assisted by

:Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran

Additional Government Pleader

for R1, R3, R5 to R7

:Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for

Mr.S.Karunamoorthy for R8

W.P.(MD).No.24379 of 2018

M/s.Simco Engineering Limited,

(formerly known as

M/s.Iskraemeco Seahorse Limited)

Rep by its Authorised Signatory,

Mr.L.Sekar,

Having registered Office at

No.126, K.Sathanoor Road,

Trichy 620 021. .. Petitioner

Vs.

3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1.The Secretary to Government,

Revenue Department,

Fort St George,

Chennai.

2.The Special Commissioner,

Urban Land Ceiling & Urban Land Tax Department,

Ezhilagam, Chennai.

3.The Assistant Commissioner,

Urban Land Ceiling & Urban Land Tax Department,

Trichy.

4.The Director of Legal studies,

Office of Director of Legal studies,

Purasaiwalkam, Chennai.

.. Respondent/

Complainant

PRAYER: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for

the records of the 1

st

respondent pertaining to the impugned order vide

Letter No.33176/ULC-I(2) / 2010-31 dated 03.12.2018 and quash the same

as illegal, arbitrary and devoid of merits and consequently forbear the

respondents from interfering in any manner, with the petitioner company's

peaceful possession, enjoyment and occupation of the lands in Survey No.

174/1, 175/4A situated at K.Abhishekapuram Village, Trichy.

4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

For Petitioner: Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for

Mr.S.Karunamoorthy

For Respondent: Mr.R.Baskaran

Additional Advocate General assisted by

:Mr.S.R.a.Ramachandran

Additional Government Pleader

for R1 to R4

COMMON ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J ]

The writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.24379 of 2018 has been filed by

the representative of a Private Limited Company, namely, Simco

Engineering Limited, seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorarified

mandamus to call for the records from the first respondent pertaining to

the impugned order in Letter No. 33176/ULC-I(2)/2010-31 dated

03.12.2018 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents

from interfering in any manner with the petitioner-company’s peaceful

possession, enjoyment, and occupation of the lands comprised in Survey

Nos. 174/1 and 175/4A, situated at K. Abhishekapuram Village,

Tiruchirappalli District.

5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2.The Public Interest Litigation in W.P.(MD) No. 18082 of 2018 has

been filed by the writ petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus

directing the respondents to construct a Men’s Hostel for the students of

the Government Law College, Tiruchirappalli.

3.Since the Government had already proposed to construct a Men’s

Hostel for the students of the Government Law College, Tiruchirappalli,

on the subject land involved in W.P.(MD) No. 24379 of 2018, both the

writ petitions were heard together.

4. Simco Meter Limited is a Private Limited Company incorporated

under the provisions of the erstwhile Companies Act. The company

commenced the manufacture of electrical meters in the name and style of

“Simco Meters” in the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 174/1 and

175/4(A), situated at Abhishekarapuram Village, Tiruchirappalli District,

measuring an extent of 34,599 square metres. In the year 1978, the

Government of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling

and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1978”),

fixing the cut-off date of surrender the excess land as 03.08.1976. In terms

6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

of the provisions of the Act, 1978, the company was required to furnish

particulars relating to excess vacant land and accordingly they submitted

an application on 14.09.1978, seeking exemption from the purview of the

Act under Section 21-A of the Act, 1978. Pending consideration of the

said application, the company sold its business to Southern Irrigation

Private Limited by a registered sale deed dated 10.07.1983. Subsequently,

on 23.04.1986, the Government of Tamil Nadu granted exemption by

G.O.Ms.No.531, Revenue Department, subject to certain conditions,

including that the land shall not be alienated or put to any use contrary to

the exemption granted and that the land shall be utilized as per the

conditions within the stipulated period. However, the landowner, namely

Simco Limited, alienated the subject properties and also failed to utilise

the land in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the exemption

order dated 23.04.1986. In view of such violations, the Government

withdrew the exemption granted earlier vide G.O.Ms.No.2384, Revenue

Department, dated 27.11.1990. Thereafter, in December 1991 Simco

Engineering Limited, submitted an application seeking exemption. The

said request was rejected by the Government by communication dated

16.06.1995 and declared 17684 sq mtrs extent of land as Urban land.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner challenged the same before the Principal

7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P.No.1320 of 1995, which was

subsequently transferred to the Tribunal constituted under the Act, 1978.

The Tribunal, by its order in T.R.P.No.386 of 1999, dismissed the appeal,

rejecting the contention of the company claiming exemption. The Tribunal

further held that possession of the excess land had already been taken by

the authorities and that the withdrawal of exemption was valid, in view of

the violation of the conditions imposed under the exemption order. The

copy of the said Tribunal order was received by the company only in the

year 2005. Thereafter, the purchaser of the said company, namely,

Iskraemeco Sea Horse Limited submitted a representation dated

24.10.2005 to the first respondent seeking issuance of a utilisation

certificate. The said request was rejected by the Government vide

G.O.Ms.No.475, Revenue Department, dated 23.08.2007, and the subject

land was allotted for the benefit of legal education, namely, for the

construction of a hostel for the Government Law College. Aggrieved by

same, the petitioner company filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.10037

of 2007, challenging G.O.Ms.No.438 of 2007. The said writ petition was

disposed of without adjudicating the merits of the petitioner’s claim, with

a direction to the Government to reconsider the allotment and either

confirm or cancel the same in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the

8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

petitioner submitted a fresh representation on 22.11.2016. However, the

same was also rejected by the Government by order dated 03.04.2018.

Challenging the said order dated 03.04.2018, the petitioner company has

filed the present writ petition, contending, inter alia, that it continues to be

in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and that

impugned order is not sustainable in law.

5.The Government authorities filed a counter affidavit denying the

allegations made by the petitioner. It was specifically contended that the

petitioner company was not entitled to any exemption under the Act, that

its earlier requests had been rejected by the competent authority, and that

such rejection had attained finality. It was further stated that findings had

already been rendered in the earlier proceedings to the effect that

possession of the excess land had been taken over by the authorities and,

therefore, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s request was

justified and in accordance with law.

6. A Public Interest Litigation in W.P.(MD).No.18082 of 2018 was

also filed seeking construction of a hostel for the Government Law

College. Both matters were heard together. Mr. R. Prabhurajadurai,

9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.24379

of 2018, made the following submissions:

6.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that possession

of the subject land was never taken in accordance with the procedure

prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)

Act, 1978 and the Rules framed thereunder. It was contended that, since

lawful possession was not taken by the authorities, the petitioner is entitled

to the benefit of the Repeal Act and, consequently, entitled to retain

possession of the property.

6.2 The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner

continues to be in physical possession of the property, which is bounded

by a compound wall, and therefore, the alleged taking over of possession

by the authorities is incorrect and contrary to law. Particular reliance was

placed on the communication dated 16.06.1995, wherein it was stated that

the competent authority was required to initiate proceedings under

Sections 9 to 11 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)

Act. According to the learned counsel, since possession was not taken in

the manner known to law, the alleged vesting is not legally sustainable.

6.3 It was further argued that, though the Government had directed

production of the entire original file, the complete records were not

10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

produced and there is no documentary evidence to establish that

possession was taken in accordance with law. Therefore, the learned

counsel submitted that the provisions of the Repeal Act automatically

apply, rendering all pending proceedings abated, and that the petitioner is

entitled to retain the land. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks relief in

the present writ petition and placed reliance on the following precedents.

2025 SCC Online Sc 447

2015 SCC Online Mad 13913

2012 6 MLJ 272

W.P.(MD).No.8674 of 2021

W.A.(MD).No.2559 of 2024

1997 3 SCC 261

7.Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted

that the writ petition filed in the year 2018 is too belated, inasmuch as it

seeks to challenge proceedings which had attained finality as early as in

the year 1995. It was contended that the rejection order dated 16.06.1995

had already been challenged by the petitioner company before the

competent Tribunal and, after due consideration of all relevant aspects, the

Tribunal dismissed the appeal, specifically holding that the provisions of

the Repeal Act were not applicable, since possession of the excess land

11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

had already been taken over by the authorities. The learned Additional

Advocate General placed strong reliance on the findings of the Tribunal to

the effect that the acquisition proceedings stood completed and were duly

recorded. It was submitted that any subsequent claim made by the

petitioner is legally untenable. It was further pointed out that the

exemption earlier granted was withdrawn on account of violation of the

conditions imposed thereunder and that the subsequent representations

made by the petitioner were also rejected. The Tribunal in T.R.P.No.386 of

1999 dated 12.09.2000 has clearly recorded findings regarding the taking

over of possession as well as the legality of the withdrawal of exemption.

7.1 It was further contended that the petitioner had never challenged

the earlier orders rejecting the claim for exemption and withdrawing the

exemption within reasonable and stipulated time and, having allowed the

said orders to attain finality, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

7.2 The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that

the petitioner lacks locus standi, as even according to the official records,

the land stands in the name of a different entity, namely, Defence and

Engineering Systems Limited, and therefore, the present petitioner has no

12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

enforceable legal right over the subject property. On these grounds, he

sought dismissal of the writ petition. In support of the said submissions,

reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and Others, reported in (2015) 5

SCC 321.

8.This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the

learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, perused the materials available on record, and examined

the precedents relied upon by both sides. Since the case was filed after

sixteen years from the dismissal on the request of the petitioner in the

year 2000 in T.R.P.No.386 of 1999, and in the counter there was some

over lapping of the facts against the records, this Court thoroughly

examined the earlier judicial verdict and the records and inclined to

adjudicate the writs on merits.

9.From the materials on record, it is evident that one Simco Meters

Company was owner of out of 34559 sq mtrs of urban in S.F.No.174/1 and

175/4A of K.Abhisekapuram Village within Trichirappalli Town. An

extent of 17684 sq mtrs out of 34559 sq mts was declared as surplus

13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

urban vacant land under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act, 1978 (herein after called as Act 1978). The said Simco

Meter company had submitted a statement under Section 7(1) of the Act,

1978 and also requested to exempt the company property from the purview

of the Act 1978. Pending consideration, the said Simco meter company

sold the property to the Southern extrusion private Limited vide sale deed

dated 13.07.1983. The said sale was against the prohibition imposed under

Section 6 of the Act, 1978 and as per Section 6 of the Act 1978, the Simco

meter company should not sell to any other persons and the same is

deemed as null and void. The same was not informed to the Government,

but the Government had granted exemption vide G.O.Ms.No.531 dated

23.04.1986. with condition the company should not sell, gift, lease or

mortgage the lands to any other person and lands exempted should be

utilised within 2 years from the date of exemption order (ie.,) on or before

22.04.1988. Since the Simco Meter Company had violated the above

mentioned two conditions, the Government had withdrawn the exemption

granted on 23.04.1986 by issuing G.O.Ms.No.2384 dated 27.11.1990. The

said withdrawal order was never challenged by the original owner and,

therefore, attained finality.

14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10.Thereafter, the present writ petitioner, claiming to be the owner

of the company and property, submitted representations dated 01.02.1991

and 23.04.1991, and claimed exemption independently. The said request

was declined by the Government by order dated 16.06.1995, which was

subsequently challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 13204 of 1995 with

the following prayer

“Writ Petition No.13204 of 1995 was filed in the High

Court, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified

Mandamus calling for the records of the 1

st

respondent in

G.O.Ms.No.561 dated 16.06.1995 and quash the same and

directs the respondent to approve the sale of the land and

consider the application for exemption under Section 21(1)

(a) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)

Act, 1978.”

11.In the said writ proceedings, the Government had specifically

taken the stand that possession of the excess land had already been taken

over. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Tamil Nadu Land

Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal and renumbered as T.R.P. No. 386 of

1999. The Tribunal rendered the following categorical finding:

The matter was examined by him giving due

consideration to the points raised by both the counsel. After

hearing the rival contentions and after perusing the orders

15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

of the authorities below and the materials on record. I am of

the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to question

the withdrawal of exemption order dated 16.05.1985 and the

petitioner is not entitled to the relief asked for in this

petition.

17...Simco Engineering Limited at Door No.187 st,

Pary's Road, Madras-18 there is no transfer of title in

respect of the immovable property of the excess vacant land

involved in this case and as such the petitioner company

cannot claim to be the owner of the excess urban land

involved in this case. Unless and un til the petitioner

company Simco Engineering Limited got a registered sale

deed in their favour executed by M/s.Southern Extrusion

Private Limited who is the purchaser under the sale deed

dated 10.07.1983, the petitioner company simco

Engineering Limited cannot become the owner of the

immovable property viz, the excess urban land involved in

this case. In the absence of any registered sale deed in

favour of the petitioner company simco engineering limited

in respect of the excess urban land involved in this case, the

petitioner company Simco Engineering Limited cannot be

treated as the owner of the excess urban land involved in

this case. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner company to

set aside the withdrawal of exemption order dated 16.06.85

in G.O.Ms.No.561 and to direct the respondent to approve

the sale of the land cannot be granted in the absence of any

registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner company

16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Simco Engineering Limited.

25.It follows from the above decision of the Supreme

Court5 that after the vesting of the land under Section 11(3)

of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)

Act, of 1978 the Government has no right to withdraw from

the acquisition of the excess urban land especially when

possession was taken by the Tahsildar of Tirchi on 30.11.94

as mentioned in para 4 of the counter affidavit of the

respondents, and the excess vacant land stands vested in the

state free from all encumbrances and the previous owner

stands divested of his right title and interest in the excess

land as per Section 11(3) of the Act.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the

case I am to hold that the petitioner herein is not entitled to

the relief of quashing the G.O.Ms.No.561 dated 16.06.85

and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as directing

the respondents to approve the sale of the land and to

consider the application fro exemption and consequently I

answer this point as against the petitioner and in favour of

the respondents.

26.Point No.2: It is specifically stated in para 4 of the

counter affidavit of the respondents that possession of the

excess land was taken over by the Tahsildar of Tirichy on

30.11.84, and this is not denied by the petitioner even in the

supplementary affidavit filed in support of this petition.

Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Repeal Act, 20/99 will have no

application to the facts of the present case. Hence, I hold

17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

that the proceedings in this matter will not abate under

Section 4 of the Tamil nadu Repeal Act, 20/99, and this

Revision petition is dismissed...

The said order was passed by the Tribunal on 20.09.2000 and attained

finality. In this backdrop, “Iskraemeco Seahorse Limited” submitted

another representation dated 24.10.2005 seeking issuance of a utilisation

certificate in respect of the Government-declared excess urban land,

possession of which had already been taken over and had reached finality

in 1995. The said representation was dismissed by the Government vide

G.O.Ms.No.475, Revenue Department, dated 23.08.2007, and the

operative portion of which is extracted below:

3.Kjd;ik Mizah; kw;Wk; epyr;rPh;jpUj;j

Mizahpd; mwpf;if kw;Wk; xJf;fPl;Lf;FOtpd;

ghpe;Jiuia muR ed;W Ma;T nra;jJ. 1978 Mk;

Mz;ila jkpo;ehL efh;g;Gw epy (cr;rtuk;G kw;Wk;

Kiwg;gLj;Jjy;) rl;lj;jpd; fPo; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;l

jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp efuf;$l;Lg;gFjp mgpN\fGuk; fpuhkk;

Gy vz;fs; 174/1A kw;Wk; 175/4A2 ,y; cs;s 7700 r.kP

kpif ntw;W epyq;fis jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp muR rl;lg;

fy;Yhhp khzth;fs; tpLjp fl;Ltjw;fhf muR epjp

xJf;fPL kw;Wk; fl;bl tiugl xg;GjYf;Fl;gl;L rl;l

fy;tpj;Jis ,af;FeUf;F xJf;fPL nra;ayhk; vd;Wk;

muR rl;lf; fy;Yhhp khzth;fs; tpLjp fl;Ltjw;fhf

xJf;fPL nra;tjhy; murhiz (epiy) vz; 140

18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

tUtha;j; Jiw ehs; 20.02.1998 ,d;gb ,ytrkhf

xJf;fPL nra;ayhk; vd;Wk; KbT nra;J mt;thNw muT

MizapLfpwJ.

12.Even though the said order was challenged by Iskraemeco

Seahorse Limited in W.P.(MD) No.10037 of 2007, the writ petition was

disposed of without adjudicating the merits of the challenge.

Subsequently, the petitioner sought indulgence of this Court to consider

another representation dated 24.10.2005 on merits. The same was also

rejected by the Government vide order dated 03.12.2018, and the operative

portion of which is extracted below:

6.Further, as per the Section 3(1) of the repeal act

which reads the validity of any orders granting exemption

under Sub Section (1) of the Section 21 of the Principal Act

or an action taken there under shall not be affected. The

above said company is not owner of the said land and also

the company has not fully utilised the land. The possession

of the land was taken over on 15.03.1995 itself. Further as

per Section 3(1) of the repeal act in respect of land vested

with Government, under Section 11(3) principal act and

possession taken by the Government are saved. Moreover,

the said land is allotted to Director of Legal Studies for

construction of Law College Hostel for Men in G.O.Ms.No.

475, Revenue dated 23.08.2007. Hence, your representation

19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

dated 24.10.2005 for utilization certificate, is not feasible for

compliance.

13.Now, the said order has been communicated to “Iskraemeco

Seahorse Limited” and, once again, the petitioner, namely M/s. Simco

Engineering Limited, has filed the present writ petition challenging the

order passed against the said company. The petitioner has failed to

disclose the earlier finding rendered by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms

Special Appellate Tribunal in T.R.P. No. 386 of 1999, wherein it was

specifically held that the petitioner company cannot be treated as the

owner of the excess urban land. The contention that possession had not

been taken was already negatived by the Tribunal vide its order dated

20.09.2000. After a lapse of sixteen years, the petitioner company has

once again raised the plea that possession was not taken. In the considered

opinion of this Court, the said plea is misconceived, and the petitioner has

repeatedly filed writ petitions without any cause of action. To address the

plea regarding possession, the then Hon’ble Judge had directed production

of the file relating to the land in question. The learned Additional

Advocate General submitted that, in view of the passage of time, it was

not possible to produce the entire record. Before perusing the file, it is

pertinent to note that the petitioner’s plea regarding non-taking of

20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

possession was conclusively negatived by the Tribunal in T.R.P. No. 386

of 1999, which specifically found that possession had been taken on

30.11.1994, as extracted above. Furthermore, the petitioner has filed the

present writ petition without any locus standi, as held by the Tribunal, and

this Court finds no material to circumvent the findings of the learned

Tribunal Judge.It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has

represented that “Iskraemeco Regent Limited” has now been changed to

its name. The plea of “Iskraemeco Regent Limited” was earlier rejected

vide G.O.Ms.No.475, Revenue Department, dated 23.08.2007. Moreover,

the petitioner company had received a notice under Section 12(7) of the

Act and subsequently compensation amount under Section 12(6) of the

Act also was determined and communicated as revealed from the file

produced by the learned Additional Advocate General. For better

appreciation, the relevant portion is incorporated hereunder.

21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

14.The file also contains the relevant record of proceedings by the

Assistant Commissioner dated 14.06.1995, which confirms that possession

was taken by the Tahsildar on 15.03.1995, and the same reads as follows:

ghh;it: jpUr;rp tl;lhl;rpah; fbjk; g.K.9578/94 ehs;:30.11.95

23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

,e;Neh;tpy; kpif ntw;W epyj;jpid fle;j

15.03.95-,y; tl;lhl;rpaj; nghWg;ngLj;Jf;nfhz;Ls;sjhf

ghh;itapy; fhZk; fbjj;jpy; tl;lhl;rpah;

njhptj;Js;shh;. vdNt Rthjpdk; ngwg;gl;l

epyj;jpw;fhd <l;Lj;njhifapid epy chpikahsUf;F

toq;Ftjw;F gphpT 16(6) fPo; eltbf;if njhlu

Nfhg;gpid m4 gphpTf;F khw;wyhk;.

15.Therefore, it is evident from the original file produced before

this Court that, although some papers were not traceable, the available

records clearly establish that de jure possession under Section 10(3) and

de facto possession under Section 10(5) had been taken and that

compensation was determined under Section 12(6) of the Act and the same

had been served upon the petitioner company on 22.06.1995, with proper

endorsements acknowledging receipt by the petitioner company.

Accordingly, the records demonstrate not only the vesting of title but also

the factum of the de jure and de facto possession. Therefore, the petitioner

is not the owner of the excess vacant land and lands were already vested

with Government and both de jure and de facto possession had been taken

over by the Government and their request of exemption has already been

rejected on 16.06.1995 and the same reached its finality in T.R.P.No.386

of 1999 by order dated 20.09.2000 itself, and the petitioner company is not

entitled to the benefit of the Repealing Act under Section 3(1)(8) of the

24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Repeal Act, which reads as follows:

3.1.The repeal of the principal Act shall not

affect:-

(a)the vesting of any vacant land under Sub-

Section (3) of Section 11, 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 21 or any action taken

thereunder.

2.Where

(a)any land is deemed to have vested in the State

Government under Sub-Section (3) of Section 11 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 Gtovernment 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.

In the said circumstances, the precedents relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, namely, State of U.P. v. Hari Ram [(2013) 4

SCC 280] and A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar and

25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Others [(2025 SCC Online SC 447)] are not applicable to this facts of the

case. On the contrary, the principles enunciated in State of Assam v.

Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and Others [(2015) 5 SCC 321], relied upon by the

learned Additional Advocate General, squarely applies to the facts of the

present case.

16. The issue can be viewed from another angle also.

Assuming that a person in possession could make a grievance,

no matter without much gain in the ultimate analysis, the

question is whether such grievance could be made long after

the alleged violation of Section 10(5). If actual physical

possession was taken over from the erstwhile landowner on

7-12-1991 as is alleged in the present case any grievance

based on Section 10(5) ought to have been made within a

reasonable time of such dispossession. If the owner did not do

so, forcible taking over of possession would acquire legitimacy

by sheer lapse of time. In any such situation the owner or the

person in possession must be deemed to have waived his right

under Section 10(5) of the Act. Any other view would, in our

opinion, give a licence to a litigant to make a grievance not

because he has suffered any real prejudice that needs to be

redressed but only because the fortuitous circumstance of a

Repeal Act tempted him to raise the issue regarding his

dispossession being in violation of the prescribed procedure.

17. Reliance was placed by the respondents upon the

decision of this Court in Hari Ram case [State of U.P. v. Hari

26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 583] . That

decision does not, in our view, lend much assistance to the

respondents. We say so, because this Court was in Hari Ram

case [State of U.P. v. Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280 : (2013) 2

SCC (Civ) 583] considering whether the word “may”

appearing in Section 10(5) gave to the competent authority the

discretion to issue or not to issue a notice before taking

physical possession of the land in question under Section 10(6).

The question whether breach of Section 10(5) and possible

dispossession without notice would vitiate the act of

dispossession itself or render it non est in the eye of the law did

not fall for consideration in that case. In our opinion, what

Section 10(5) prescribes is an ordinary and logical course of

action that ought to be followed before the authorities decided

to use force to dispossess the occupant under Section 10(6). In

the case at hand if the appellant's version regarding

dispossession of the erstwhile owner in December 1991 is

correct, the fact that such dispossession was without a notice

under Section 10(5) will be of no consequence and would not

vitiate or obliterate the act of taking possession for the

purposes of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. That is because

Bhabadeb Sarma, erstwhile owner, had not made any

grievance based on breach of Section 10(5) at any stage during

his lifetime implying thereby that he had waived his right to do

so.

27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

16.Therefore, this Court is inclined to hold that the rejection of the

petitioner’s claim is well-founded, within the jurisdiction of the

authorities, and suffers from no infirmity. It is to be noted that the

petitioner company has styled itself as Simco Engineering Limited

(formerly known as Iskraemeco Sea horse Limited). However, in the

statement of dates and events, the company is transferred and referred to

as Regent Defence Engineering and Engineering Limited. In the

circumstances, this Court is unable to find any justification for

entertaining the writ petitioner’s plea on the ground of authority to

continue the writ petition even after the change of name to Regent

Defence Engineering and Engineering Limited. Further, from the records,

it is evident that the company was originally called Simco Meter Limited,

and the said company sold the land as a running industry to Southern

Extrusion Private Limited vide registered sale deed dated 10.07.1983.

The said sale deed is void and illegal under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. This position is fortified

by the decision of the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in P. Gopirathnam

and Others v. Feerodous Estate (Pvt) Ltd. [(1999) 3 LW 249], wherein the

Hon’ble Full Bench held as follows

38.. When Section 6 prohibits even proposed transfer,

28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

question of considering validity or invalidity does not arise

and the consequences are also already declared by the Act as

null and void. It takes as if there is no transaction at all in the

eye of law.

17.Subsequently, on the basis of the said invalid transaction,

Southern Extrusions Private Limited was taken over by Simco

Engineering Limited, which in turn was taken over by a new promoter

namely Seahorse Industries Limited, and subsequently by other

promoters, namely Iskraemeco Seahorse Limited, again Simco

Engineering Limited, and finally Regent Engineering and Engineering

Systems Limited. Accordingly, the petitioner’s plea that the sale deed

dated 10.07.1983 was not a speculative transaction is misconceived and

amounts to an attempt to make a fortuitous claim over Government land.

The petitioner has filed writ petition one after another without any cause of

action, repeatedly taking the perpetual plea that possession had not been

taken, which was conclusively negatived and attained finality on

30.09.2000 in T.R.P. No. 386 of 1999. For all these reasons, the writ

petition in W.P.(MD) No. 24379 of 2018 is liable to be dismissed.

18.In view of the above, while W.P.(MD) No. 24379 of 2018 is

dismissed and the writ petitioner’s prayer in W.P.(MD) No. 18082 of 2018

29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

is allowed. The official respondents are hereby directed to complete the

construction of the Government Law College Hostel, Tiruchirappalli,

within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

19.Accordingly, W.P.(MD) No. 24379 of 2018 is dismissed, and

W.P.(MD) No. 18082 of 2018 is allowed on the following terms:

19.1 The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 24379 of 2018 is not entitled

to any right over the sanctioned land, excess land, or any portion thereof.

The Government is at liberty to proceed with the construction of the

Government Law College Hostel in the subject premises. The said

construction shall be completed within a period of one year from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order.

[G.J.,J.] & [K.K.R.K.,J.]

19.01.2026

Index :Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No

NCC :Yes/No

sbn

30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Copy to

1.The Principal Secretary,

Higher Education Department,

St' George Fort,

Secretariat,

Chennai-600009.

2.The Vice Chancellor,

Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,

Poompozil,

5, Dr.D.G.S.Dinakaran Salai,

Chennai 600 028.

3.The District Collector,

Office of the District Collector,

Trichy District.

4.The Commissioner,

Office of the Commissioner,

Trichy Corporation,

Trichy.

5.The State of Tamilnadu,

rep by Secretary to Government,

Revenue Department, Fort St.George,

Chennai.

6.The Director of Legal Studies,

Office of the Director of Legal Studies,

Purusaivakkam, Chennai.

7.The Principal,

Trichy Government Law College,

Trichy.

8.The Additional Advocate General

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

and

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

sbn

W.P.(MD).Nos.18082 and 24379 of 2018

19.01.2026

32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis