MADRAS CITIZENS PROGRESSIVE COUNCEL Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Madras Citizens Progressive Council represented by its Secretary has moved this writ petition in the nature of vox populi. The Council has made a grievance that the 4th respondent has been holding land in excess of the Ceiling area prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the 1st and 2nd Respondents have not discharged their legal obligation of such excess land. The petitioner has stated that the 4th respondent applied for exemption under the Act in the name of construction of additional quarters for labourers, extension of the existing elementary school, construction of a community hall-workers samudaya Nala Kudam, construction of godown for storing cotton bales and starting a weaving unit and a bleaching plant. Although the 4th respondent had no satisfactory explanations to many of the objections to the request for exemption, the second respondent on 2-7-1986 conveyed to the 4th respondent that exemption was granted subject to the condition that it would make the construction of additional labour quarters etc. within a period of one year. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition :

(2.) According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent once again managed to obtain a recommendation from the 3rd respondent as well as the second respondent for exemption for a period of two years commencing from 29-8-1988. It is alleged that the 4th respondent has been making such application stating wrongly that it had intentions to construct the quarters for the labourers, godown for storing cotton bales or establishing a bleaching plant etc. The respondents, according to the petitioner, have not been discharging their legal obligations and thus the public interest is put to jeopardy by them.

(3.) There are several other allegations in the petition. The main or the moot question, however, raised by the petitioner is based on the allegation that the 4th respondent has got absolutely no claim to seek exemption, that respondents. 1 to 3 have not cared to test the genuineness of the claims of the 4th respondent and that although once exemption was granted on condition, aforesaid, and the condition has not been complied with by the 4th respondent, yet respondents 1 to 3 have taken no steps to acquire the excess lands in its hands.