Family partition though not registered can be recognised in determination of excess vacant land.

1. The petitioner herein has challenged the two orders, one passed by respondent No.2 in S.R.No.1295 of 1985 dated 38. 1988 and the other passed by respondent No.1 in J2.67024 of 1988 dated 112. 1988.

2. The respondent No.2 initiated action under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’) and determined that an extent of 1350 sq.mts. of urban land in S.No.210/2A1A1t Pt. of Thiruvanmiyur Village is an excess vacant land under Section 9(5) of the Act. On appeal against such determination, the respondent No.1 confirmed the order of the competent authority.

3. The respondent No.2 issued a notice under Section 9(4) of the Act to the petitioner, terming him as the urban land owner, to acquire the excess vacant land measuring 1350 sq.mts. after allowing 1000 sq.mts. towards his family entitlement under Section 5 (1) of the Act, since his family consists of himself and his wife only.

.4. The petitioner herein contested the notice inter alia contending that the property comprised in registered sale deed dated 112. 1962 was purchased from and out of the sale proceeds of his father’s property at Chittor Road, Ernakulam, was given a sum of Rs. 10,000 for purchase of the land in his name and a sum of Rs. 14,000 left in his hands by his parents for purchase of property for the benefit of three daughters of his eldest brother, G.Divakar Pai. Till the property was purchased, the amount was tre ated as a loan and the interest was paid by the petitioner. His brother was mostly employed in the northern parts of India and was very reluctant to purchase any landed property in Madras or Cochin either in his own name or as guardian of his minor children, because he felt that there was always a danger of vacant land being encroached upon by squatters and it would be difficult for him to look after any such property. It was for this reason that in the month of January, 1961, an application was made in the name of the mother of the petitioner for Nanganallur Co-operative Society property, for allotment of sites for the benefit of the petitioner’s brother’s children and he also made an application in his own name for purchase of the property. After the death of the mother when the time came for the execution of sale deeds, the Society would seek to register only his sale deed and not that in the name of his mother. Then, he asked for return of the monies and conveyed to his brother that he could consent to the monies deposited by his mother through him to be paid over to him on his assurance that he will obtain 6 grounds of land for his children. His brother wrote to Nanganallur Society to return the monies to the petitioner. Accordingly, he received the amount. He withdrew his application and decided to purchase the property elsewhere. He negotiated with Dr.Kunjan Raja for the purchase of his land and told him that 6 grounds were for Mr.B.K.Sarvotham Rao and his sons and 6 grounds for his brother’s daughters and the balance of 4 and odd grounds for him and that four sale deeds may have to be executed, one in the name of his brother’s children by their father and guardian, Mr.G.D.Pai with a hope that he would persuade him to this course. When he went to Allahabad for the immersion of his parents’ ashes, his brother insisted of his taking the property in his own name and of giving it to his children on their attaining majority, as desired by their parents. It was for this reason the previous list o f nominees were cancelled and a single sale deed was taken in his name for 10 grounds. His nieces attained majority by 1974 and his brother returned from Cuba which was his last posting on 15. 1976, and made a tentative partition following the division originally intended in 1962 and indicated in the plan to the sale deed under the signature of the vendors with dashed lines and in two blue-prints drawn by Chartered Engineer Mr.U.N.P.Rao, and the same was placed before his brother for allo